I HATE APPLE

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (10189 of them)
but yes, a BTO option would be good, especially for the Mac Minis.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:43 (eighteen years ago) link

do the server install disks just say "nuh uh, not on this you don't!" with an imac?

Eh, I doubt it but:

#1 No intel os X server
#2 No one likes paying 2x
#3 It is "good enough"

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:31 (eighteen years ago) link

Of course with OS X server, what you are mainly paying for is the admin tools. Most of it is open-source stuff any way. OS X client plus fink and phpmyadmin is not a bad second guess (insert favourite package manager or source compiles and admin tools where applicable)

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link

PhpMyAdmin is for administering MySQL not Unixland, MORON.

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:37 (eighteen years ago) link

But you're right, I figure most of the hard stuff out anyway.

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:40 (eighteen years ago) link

I meant webmin, but you get the general idea.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:47 (eighteen years ago) link

Webmin is useful for some things, but I'd never try to use it as my primary server config tool. It's just too rough around the edges.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:51 (eighteen years ago) link

I really don't like a lot of automated tools for that kind of stuff. I got burned way too many times back in the RH5.2 era.

Anyone here use Subversion or something like it to manage config files?

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:54 (eighteen years ago) link

I've not had to touch it in a long while, you're probably right, no good for production, but for home server, or even workgroup, good enough. All the servers I have to deal with are OS X (lovely admin tools) or win 2000/2003 (not bad really but really really inconsistent)

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:57 (eighteen years ago) link

That admin thing that works over the network in win2k is the jam.

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't like the admin tools on Windows at all. Their entire design strategy: put any important settings in the same size of dialog box. If the box isn't big enough, add another tab!

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 22:01 (eighteen years ago) link

this may be of some use: web interface to a server spotlight http://searchlightrss.com/

That's really kinda cool. I'll check it out some though I think it was a little too late. One thing I didn't mention was that there was an outside IT consultant who wanted to toss the whole works for a Windows server, so at least I convinced him to stay with *nix.

sigh

The Equator Lounge (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 23:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Small mercy there then, the windows networking stack is shockingly slow.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 23 March 2006 06:27 (eighteen years ago) link

Is it really that bad? Or do you mean windows filesharing instead of TCP/IP?

Do they even do zero copy sockets? Do they have sendfile()? Pretty sad that the only way for IIS to come close to smoking Apache at static content was for them to integrate parts of it into the kernel..

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Thursday, 23 March 2006 06:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Both nfs and smb sharing from windows are significantly slower that *nix on the same hardware (this was with a live cd used for testing and the same ntfs volume used for source material, mixed win2k and xp clients, mixed gigabit and 100 megabit infrastructure). Its not conclusively the networking stack but the result is much the same.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 23 March 2006 06:46 (eighteen years ago) link

yea, I'm not surprised.

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Thursday, 23 March 2006 06:57 (eighteen years ago) link

My own experience is that SMB sharing is significantly slower on Windows than with Samba on Linux. Using a properly-optimised ext3 volume to store the files on instead of NTFS gives Linux a second speed advantage, too.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 23 March 2006 07:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't know why people deploy ext3 when reiser etc are available.

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Thursday, 23 March 2006 07:03 (eighteen years ago) link

I HATE APPLE AND SUNN O)))

So in the processing of keeping up iTunes with my CD collection, I tried to rip Sunn O)))'s "Black One" about an hour ago. Now, my iBook won't spit the CD back out. It's little motor tries and tries and then gives up and re-loads the CD in iTunes. Fuck.

Already called AppleCare and they couldn't figure out anything. They just told me to either mail it in or take it to an Apple store. So, any tips before I make the long trek tomorrow morning? Sigh.

Mickey (modestmickey), Sunday, 26 March 2006 21:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Did you put a shaped or a spraypainted cd in? I don't have Black1

R.I.P. West Village Bird Shaman ]-`: (ex machina), Sunday, 26 March 2006 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link

our imac loves to eat Cds

Mr Jones (Mr Jones), Sunday, 26 March 2006 22:22 (eighteen years ago) link

Mickey did you try starting up your iBook while holding down the eject key?

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 26 March 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link

or the mouse button

stet (stet), Sunday, 26 March 2006 22:32 (eighteen years ago) link

jed, stet, just tried that. No go.

This CD won't fucking come out. Any other ideas before I take it to the shop?

Mickey (modestmickey), Monday, 27 March 2006 00:51 (eighteen years ago) link

Haha ok I just got it fixed. For anybody else who encounters this, here was the solution. I found it on this article:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1777942�

I know this sounds completely stupid but...

I tried to insert one of those small CDs into my iBook's drive hoping it would pull it in an read it like a normal cd by now its stuck inside. Should I bring it into the Apple Store to have it taken out or is there a much easier way for me to get it out such as tweezers or something? I really don't want to have to leave it at the store as I need it for school but I need the drive working. Thank you for any assistance!

For the record, I was not stupid enough to try putting an abnormally sized CD in the drive.

Ok oddly my father told me to hold it up, turn it sideways with the drive opening facing down and shake it once. The cd popped enough out to grab onto it and take it completely out. lWOw problem solved quickly hehe.

But this did work. I held the computer sideways and tried to eject it while shaking and it came right out. Man.

Mickey (modestmickey), Monday, 27 March 2006 01:17 (eighteen years ago) link

my ipod died today :-(

tehresa (tehresa), Monday, 27 March 2006 02:26 (eighteen years ago) link

RIP

latebloomer: My name *COCKS SHOTGUN* is Horace! (latebloomer), Monday, 27 March 2006 02:34 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't know why people deploy ext3 when reiser etc are available.

Because ext3 is better for the job, obv. It's more reliable than reiserfs, performs much better (IMX) on large files, and doesn't have much that reiserfs doesn't have.

I might consider using XFS if I had a system on a very reliable UPS that I was sure wouldn't go down unexpectedly. Not otherwise, though - if a machine gets turned off with XFS filesystems mounted, you *will* lose data. What other serious alternatives on Linux are there?

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:11 (eighteen years ago) link

no, you must use the most l33t homebrew unproven OSS filesystem you can find.

Ed (dali), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Hahaha! Sorry, Ed, I was forgetting :-)

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:28 (eighteen years ago) link

I love that Newtonian physics still applies to some bogaboos of modern computing technology.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:31 (eighteen years ago) link

In fact why haven't you written your own, mine uses the bubbles in roquefort cheese as a model for byte storage.

Ed (dali), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:32 (eighteen years ago) link

er BUGaboos

xpost!!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:32 (eighteen years ago) link

Ed I was about to ask why you are up this early, but I forgot about the time changing over there.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:33 (eighteen years ago) link

I should have left to work by now, but there was some cold speck, pancetta and porcini pizza to deal with.

Ed (dali), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:35 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm sure they'll understand.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 27 March 2006 05:39 (eighteen years ago) link

I wasn't at the office when I posted above, but I am now. Bleah.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 27 March 2006 06:15 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't seem to have any time change issues, I was woken up early yesterday morning by my mother's dog licking my feet.

Ed (dali), Monday, 27 March 2006 06:33 (eighteen years ago) link

You guys are turds. I used reiserfs on a machine for like 5 years. You just use RedHat.

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 16:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Hah. The Constructive Argument Department strikes again! Just because you have never had any reiserfs problems doesn't mean it's a better choice than ext3.

I've had severe performance problems with concurrent access to large files on reiserfs filesystems - "severe" meaning "causing processes to hang in the D-state for several minutes". These problems vanished when I moved the relevant files over to an ext3 filesystem.

Now, that's not going to be a problem for everyone. Not many people have databases with files over 4G in size, like we do. Nevertheless, Reiserfs clearly isn't up to the job for *that* task, and it doesn't have any advantages over properly-optimised ext3 for general fileserving.

I'm not going to get into an experience fight, but I *do* know what I'm talking about when it comes to Linux sysadmin stuff. Just to let you know.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:06 (eighteen years ago) link

My PB has decided to fall asleep eery 10 seconds or so. I narrowed it down to a faulty heat sensor underneath the trackpad that gives wildly incorrect readings, freaking out the system software and forcing "emergency overtemp" shutdowns. I took it to Tekserve yesterday and it turns out I know one of the guys who works back there - I'd forgotten. He put me to the front of his queue and I'm getting it back today! THANK U APPLECARE. It is fucking retardo that there's not a hack to tell the system to ignore that particular heat sensor, though - and even more that OS X doesn't at least pop up a dialog to tell you what just happened. What if the computer actually was too hot?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:23 (eighteen years ago) link

I can't believe that problems like that with reiser exist to this day; what kernel was this?

Ext3 is a bag on the side of Ext2 which has been tuned the fuck out, but it is less than optimal design that needs to die.

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:26 (eighteen years ago) link

Off the top of my head I don't know the exact version. A 2.4 varient, certainly.

Whatever the kernel version, I'm certainly not going to use reiserfs again where there is a risk of something like that happening. Yes, I could move off it - I did do - but that involves significant downtime.

Ext3 is a ... less than optimal design that needs to die.

It's fast, fully-featured, and very very solid.

What features does reiserfs have that ext3 doesn't? None that are worth trading the extra reliability for.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:37 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm not answering me, YOU FUCKING LIAR.

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:50 (eighteen years ago) link

or you :(

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:50 (eighteen years ago) link

Performance

Compared to ext2 and ext3 in 2.4, when dealing with files under 4k and with tail packing enabled, ReiserFS is often faster by a factor of 10–15. This is of great benefit in Usenet news spools, HTTP caches, mail delivery systems and other applications where performance with small files is critical.

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:51 (eighteen years ago) link

ReiserFS in versions of the Linux kernel before 2.4.10 were considered unstable by Namesys and not recommended for production use, especially in conjunction with NFS.
Some file operations (including unlink(2)) are not synchronous on ReiserFS, which can cause some subtle breakage in applications relying heavily on file-based locks.
There is no known way to defragment a ReiserFS filesystem, aside from a full dump and restore.
Early implementations of ReiserFS (prior to that in Linux 2.6.2) were also susceptible to out-of-order write hazards (files being appended to during a crash, for example, would gain a tail of garbage upon next mount). The current journaling implementation in ReiserFS, however, is now on par with that of ext3's "ordered" journaling level.


HAHAHA :(

Houdini Gordonii (ex machina), Tuesday, 28 March 2006 17:52 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.