ddrueding
Fixture
I've used Server 2003 as a workstation many times, and still recommend it to those with MSDN subscriptions/Power Packs. There is a distinct performance gain over XP, though there are some software compatibility issues.
The 30GB model of the Core V2 is about $75. Do you think it would perform as well as the 250GB model?
Actually, that's what Microsoft thinks. They're the ones who put the word "Server" in the name and included server technologies in the product.
Yup. Everyone I know licenses per physical processor (Microsoft, Citrix, VMWare, etc). Regardless of the number of cores/hyperthreading.
Oracle said:For the purposes of counting the number of processors which require licensing, for a Sun UltraSPARC T1 processor with 4, 6 or 8 cores at 1.0 gigahertz or 8 cores at 1.2 gigahertz for only those servers specified on the Sun Server Table which can be accessed at http://oracle.com/contracts, “n” cores shall be determined by multiplying the total number of cores by a core processor licensing factor of .25. For the purposes of counting the number of processors which require licensing for AMD and Intel multicore chips, “n” cores shall be determined by multiplying the total number of cores by a core processor licensing factor of .50. For the purposes of counting the number of processors which require licensing for all hardware platforms not otherwise specified in this section, a multicore chip with "n" cores shall be determined by multiplying "n" cores by a core processor licensing factor of .75. All cores on all multicore chips for each licensed program for each factor listed below are to be aggregated before multiplying by the appropriate core processor licensing factor and all fractions of a number are to be rounded up to the next whole number. When licensing Oracle programs with Standard Edition One or Standard Edition in the product name, a processor is counted equivalent to an occupied socket; however, in the case of multi-chip modules, each chip in the multi-chip module is counted as one occupied socket.
That was me. Sorry. :cheese:
Hey, who ate the rest of my post?
That was me. Sorry. :cheese:
Oracle doesn't license per physical CPU. They use crazy multipliers.
It looks like the Intel SATA SSD's are coming of age.
So, I guess that means I need to buy a Panasonic notebook that has SATA capability.
Any suggestions?
CF 52?
I htink that the dudreing was just making a joke.
Ugh. A great reason to never use Oracle.
Ugh. A great reason to never use Oracle.
Agreed. But scaling up doesn't make sense financially when you can scale out. 8 4-core boxes cost much less than one 32-core box. Granted, some problems can't be distributed that way, but most can. That is why I never understood using big iron (eg. AS/400s) to run a bunch of VMs; You were paying the big box premium just so you could break it up again.
I'm sure there are situations where Oracle is the best solution, I'm just glad I don't have to support one of them.
Citrix, on the other hand, is the large thorn in my side at the moment.
No. The cells in an SSD can be in one of two states (or four in the case of MLC). Once you overwrite the entire drive with zeroes, all the cells are all flipped to the "zero" state with no residual memory of the previous state. The best analogy I can think of is discharging a capacitor to zero volts. No part of the capacitor is going to remember what voltage it was prior to discharge. The only reason for multiple wipes with a magnetic disk is because the heads don't always entirely erase the previous state of the bit. However, even with magnetic disks, it takes specialized equipment to attempt to recover info. In short, when you don't want your SSDs any more just overwrite them with zeroes and resell them on eBay. Nobody, including national security agencies, will be able to recover any previous data as it just doesn't exist any more. Therefore, you can make a little extra cash selling the drives instead of disposing of them with no fear of leaking sensitive info.Presumably there is no point in defragmenting an SSD because the memory cell allocation is dynamic, but what about secure deletion. Prior to drive disposition, is a 7-pass overwrite method preferred or is it even necessary?
The memory cells have an extremely small capacitance relative to the circuitry used to change their state. Therefore, when erasing they'll end up pretty close to whatever state represents a zero. For example, let's say for a single level cell 0 to 1V is considered zero while 2 to 3V is considered a one. When the cell is erased, it'll probably be something like 0.01 volts. As a cell gets heavily used it might end up being somewhat higher, perhaps 0.3 volts. Eventually the cell can't reliably hold a state and the controller simply reassigns the data to a spare. Regardless, the voltage of a cell is not affected by the previous voltage to enough of an extent to reliably recover data. In fact, it shouldn't be affected by the previous voltage at all. Besides that, there is no way to read the voltage of a cell directly. The SSDs controller reads it internally and uses a voltage comparator to determine if the value represents a one or zero. However, this cell voltage reading has no need to appear on any of the output pins on the chip. The only access to it would be by physically removing the chip's epoxy case. That would destroy the chip, and also alter the states of many of the cells, making the exercise pointless.OK, I'll use a one-pass overwrite. I was thinking that the charge states may not be exactly the same after a single erasure and that some technique could be used to obtain an analog output and process the data.
2-bit MLC is in use. 3-bit would require 8 cell levels instead of the 4 required by a 2-bit MLC as there are 8 potential states. That in turn requires much more precise circuitry. I'm sure it's coming, but I doubt it's here yet.I do recall reading about 3-bit MLC memory, not just the 2-bit variety . I don't know who if anyone uses it yet.