 | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) That summarizes it pretty well. SATA is something like five times cheaper per byte, and that's not even counting that we'd need a more expensive motherboard with a SCSI controller. Right now, disk isn't really the bottleneck for the load, so (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Yes, no one there to change tapes or CDs. The data will be frequently synced to off-site locations -- not just Todd's place. (...) What, planning for a nuclear calamity are you? :) (But yeah, we'll have that.) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Excellent point. Looks like there's three differentm steppings for this particular CPU model, and any of the first two can be mixed freely, but the third can't. I've messed with all this stuff before, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded of it, (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Matthew could answer this better than I, but my opinion is that the money is put to better use in ECC memory, and gobs of it. We're starting of with 1GB of RAM, upgradeable to 8GB. Since the OS automatically allocates unused RAM toward (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Nope, I hate tape backup (too slow, too small, too expensive, too unreliable) and CDR's are too small and too labor intensive. Of course, the lack of a CDRW drive doesn't preclude physical media backups from being carried out elsewhere. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Interesting that the HDDs are serialATA rather than SCSI. However from my experiences this week no bad thing. One server with dual HDDs in a mirrored RAID config had the SCSI controller backplane fail. However replacing it lost all the data on (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Hmm, no tape drive or CDRW. How does off-site backup work---over the wires to Todd's office? I do hope that there is a backup outside of Boston. . . (21 years ago, 28-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | RE: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
Ok, first time I've posted to off-topic, so hopefully I put in the TO header properly :) Matthew, I just want to point out one thing to make sure of with the two processors you are getting now. Make sure the stepping is same so when you go to dual (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Appleseed (was Re: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank)
|
|
(...) V...v...volume five? Really? It's coming? ohpleaseohpleaseohpl...seohplease let it be so... Link? I'm dyin' over here... Soren (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, some ISPs (verizon, I believe is one) make it so their server only lets you use a From address with their domain name on it. (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrnc3s027.249.....bu.edu... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) [ ... snipped ... ] This is exactly what I do at work to reply to my non-work e-mail. Anything I send from my Mindspring account at (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New MOC: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank
|
|
(...) Speaking of Appleseed Soren, did you see the new Appleseed coming out? It is incredible!!! It is coming out this spring I believe. Cannot wait. David. (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
(...) Yup, as I understand from the Windows folks, it was a nightmare. And stopping the outgoing flood means less people getting new versions of the mail, so it does slow down the spread. We just blocked it at BU for Resnet, but we do allow students (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
(...) We have a lot of bandwidth. :) (...) Yeah, but with 97% of machines running MS OSes, I think the ISPs are sincere in saying that the main purpose of blocking port 25 is to stop the onslaught of Windows-bourne trojans/worms/etc. I know some (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
(...) Blocking outgoing port 25 doesn't do anything for security. At most, it means that infected machines can't be used to send out spam (unless they're using the U's SMTP server). But it won't stop anyone from *getting* infected. That said, it (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: New MOC: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank
|
|
(...) Agreed. The series and OVAs reek of missed opportunity. (...) Have to disagree here. The first twenty minutes, yeah, but the problem is more that they used a slower style and assumed that the characters would garner enough sympathy to carry (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New MOC: "Prowler" Autonomous Battle Tank
|
|
(...) Yeah, I've seen *some* of those too. Definitely more humour, and focus on the daily routine of the special vehicles unit, but I think I prefer the movies more. Patlabor 3 was crap though. It took the style of the Patlabor movies in a new (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
|
(...) Well, it really *is* for security. Or, bandwidth-savings, at least. The alternative is to send armed strike forces around to install patches on every MS Windows system attached to the network every time a new hole is found. (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
