There have been rumors that Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) would include support for ZFS and it appears, with the latest preview from Apple (see Ars Technica), that that rumor is reality.
This has caused an unsurprising fuss and state of excitement in developers and users. Everybody knows that HFS and HFS+ (the current filesystem choices) are really bad. They are comparatively very slow and inefficient and archaic from the perspective that they put some interesting restrictions on how files, file naming and individual partitions of a hard drive are used.
There have been rumors that Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) would include support for ZFS and it appears, with the latest preview from Apple (see Ars Technica), that that rumor is reality.
This has caused an unsurprising fuss and state of excitement in developers and users. Everybody knows that HFS and HFS+ (the current filesystem choices) are really bad. They are comparatively very slow and inefficient and archaic from the perspective that they put some interesting restrictions on how files, file naming and individual partitions of a hard drive are used.
Am I the only one that seems to be experiencing more problems with websites than usual?
I've visited quite a few recently which just seem not to work. Others have issues with which I can identify the problem, but which are still ultimately broken.
One of the more common issues I find is that the URL for a site doesn't work, or at least only works when I use the full name. The core of the issue here is that modern browsers can be really convenient and let us just enter a word or domain fragment and we expect to end up at the site. Furthermore, most domain owners now realize that some people just like to use the domain portion without the hostname (www) to reach their sites.
Am I the only one that seems to be experiencing more problems with websites than usual?
I've visited quite a few recently which just seem not to work. Others have issues with which I can identify the problem, but which are still ultimately broken.
One of the more common issues I find is that the URL for a site doesn't work, or at least only works when I use the full name. The core of the issue here is that modern browsers can be really convenient and let us just enter a word or domain fragment and we expect to end up at the site. Furthermore, most domain owners now realize that some people just like to use the domain portion without the hostname (www) to reach their sites.
Am I the only one that seems to be experiencing more problems with websites than usual?
I've visited quite a few recently which just seem not to work. Others have issues with which I can identify the problem, but which are still ultimately broken.
One of the more common issues I find is that the URL for a site doesn't work, or at least only works when I use the full name. The core of the issue here is that modern browsers can be really convenient and let us just enter a word or domain fragment and we expect to end up at the site. Furthermore, most domain owners now realize that some people just like to use the domain portion without the hostname (www) to reach their sites.
I'm still in the process of testing and optimizing different applications and environments on the T1000. Why? Because there really are a lot of options available to you once you start looking and even more if you start approaching the problem in different ways.
One of the key things with the T1000 is that with the multiple cores and multiple threads getting the best out of it takes some work. Some applications simply don't scale well with multiple threads (and I point no fingers), so instead of looking at one big application you look at running the same application multiple times. Rather than running one version of the Apache, for example, try running 4 versions and allocating them a quarter of the CPU core allocation each, and then let them get on with it. The RAM requirements are higher (slightly) because of the overhead, but when you have 8GB or 16GB to play with, and extra couple of MB is not the primary concern.
I'm still in the process of testing and optimizing different applications and environments on the T1000. Why? Because there really are a lot of options available to you once you start looking and even more if you start approaching the problem in different ways.
One of the key things with the T1000 is that with the multiple cores and multiple threads getting the best out of it takes some work. Some applications simply don't scale well with multiple threads (and I point no fingers), so instead of looking at one big application you look at running the same application multiple times. Rather than running one version of the Apache, for example, try running 4 versions and allocating them a quarter of the CPU core allocation each, and then let them get on with it. The RAM requirements are higher (slightly) because of the overhead, but when you have 8GB or 16GB to play with, and extra couple of MB is not the primary concern.
I'm still in the process of testing and optimizing different applications and environments on the T1000. Why? Because there really are a lot of options available to you once you start looking and even more if you start approaching the problem in different ways.
One of the key things with the T1000 is that with the multiple cores and multiple threads getting the best out of it takes some work. Some applications simply don't scale well with multiple threads (and I point no fingers), so instead of looking at one big application you look at running the same application multiple times. Rather than running one version of the Apache, for example, try running 4 versions and allocating them a quarter of the CPU core allocation each, and then let them get on with it. The RAM requirements are higher (slightly) because of the overhead, but when you have 8GB or 16GB to play with, and extra couple of MB is not the primary concern.
Apparently the all-in-one computer is coming back in fashion. The new model from Gateway is looking like a very attractive option if you don't want to buy the apple iMac all-in-one we all know and love.
But what if your computer has just died but you still have the monitor and keyboad and want to choose a new unit but like the idea of an all-in-one?
VIA may have a good solution for you - VIA's Fanless Ultrathin vm7700 VMPC which attaches to the back of a monitor using the standard VESA mount. It uses VIAs low power CPU and is therefore fanless and nice and slim.
Apparently the all-in-one computer is coming back in fashion. The new model from Gateway is looking like a very attractive option if you don't want to buy the apple iMac all-in-one we all know and love.
But what if your computer has just died but you still have the monitor and keyboad and want to choose a new unit but like the idea of an all-in-one?
VIA may have a good solution for you - VIA's Fanless Ultrathin vm7700 VMPC which attaches to the back of a monitor using the standard VESA mount. It uses VIAs low power CPU and is therefore fanless and nice and slim.