Cruising is finally coming into this century
-
@technobabble said:
@alexntg We stayed in Blue Ridge. Nice town, loved the countryside. Because of the weather, we missed out on tubing!
Nice area. I used to live about an hour from there.
-
@alexntg Loved everything but the slow internet!
-
@alexntg One of the reasons I was looking at Continuum vs GFI was the optional support desk.
-
@Addie said:
Friendly reminder be nice please I don't want to shut down this thread.....
I'm a little confused, how is this thread not a nice conversation? I haven't seen any name calling, just lively debate......
-
After I read "Time Management for Systems Administrators" by Tom Limoncelli (http://www.tomontime.com/) and seeing the perspective he put on the value of time off and away made me think differently about technology and how I use it. For me it's not about not loving tech. I love technology, because it keeps me learning new things and understanding problems better, while giving me a method of solving said problems.
It's the noise that builds up over time that causes me to want to disconnect / reset. That's vacation for me, a period of calm, where I can catch a breath, do what I want to do (be it personal tech projects or just simple sitting my rump in sand watching the waves roll in. I achieve calm, which makes me happy and allows me to think more clearly.
But if being connected is what you like to be even when on vacation and it's not affecting you, your family or your health, more power to you.
(This is not a personal attack on anyone)
-
@Bill-Kindle just see PSX's curse laden rant mid way up, that is what they are talking about
-
@david.wiese all I saw were the [moderated] tags. But that's the PSX way.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@david.wiese all I saw were the [moderated] tags. But that's the PSX way.
Who do you think put the [moderated] tags in there?
-
@Dashrender said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
@david.wiese all I saw were the [moderated] tags. But that's the PSX way.
Who do you think put the [moderated] tags in there?
I guess I was late to the party. Point taken.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm a little confused, how is this thread not a nice conversation? I haven't seen any name calling, just lively debate......
On the contrary, Scott has repeatedly been called a narcissist. I would say that counts as name-calling. It's also, completely untrue, and an illustration of how little the name-caller actually knows Scott. Confident? Yes, and with plenty of justification for it, but not a narcissist. That's like calling a confident woman "bossy".
On another note, who knew that this topic was going to spark such heated debate? I feel a bit like I threw a match over my shoulder into a pool of gasoline.
-
@Dominica said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm a little confused, how is this thread not a nice conversation? I haven't seen any name calling, just lively debate......
On the contrary, Scott has repeatedly been called a narcissist. I would say that counts as name-calling. It's also, completely untrue, and an illustration of how little the name-caller actually knows Scott. Confident? Yes, and with plenty of justification for it, but not a narcissist. That's like calling a confident woman "bossy".
On another note, who knew that this topic was going to spark such heated debate? I feel a bit like I threw a match over my shoulder into a pool of gasoline.
At the least, it's put me off wanting to go on a cruise now.
-
@Dominica said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm a little confused, how is this thread not a nice conversation? I haven't seen any name calling, just lively debate......
On the contrary, Scott has repeatedly been called a narcissist. I would say that counts as name-calling. It's also, completely untrue, and an illustration of how little the name-caller actually knows Scott. Confident? Yes, and with plenty of justification for it, but not a narcissist. That's like calling a confident woman "bossy".
On another note, who knew that this topic was going to spark such heated debate? I feel a bit like I threw a match over my shoulder into a pool of gasoline.
I've been looking back through and I see now what you are saying. I originally read it as narcissistic behavior, which I don't really agree with that terminology in this context.
As for a match & pool of gasoline, who are you, The Joker? /jk
-
@Dominica said:
It's also, completely untrue,
Enabling. It's what's for dinner.
Scott's wrong on this subject, using a narcissistic justification and is showing serious dependency issues with regards to working. That's my amateur psychological opinion of the issue at hand. You want a professional one, you picked the wrong member of the family. I calls it like I sees it.
This goes beyond "bossy" or "confident". It's drifting into the "I'm right, I'm always right, because I know everything about everything and you are always wrong" mentality that Scott exhibits at times. RAID5 anyone?
-
@PSX_Defector for three years I've asked for people to provide math on when RAID 5 would be acceptable. That's a lot if vetting. Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right.
But let's face it, once name calling is needed, the argument was already conceded.
-
So here is the RAID 5 question.... Are you saying that I'm wrong and that you've been screwing people over by holding back info that we don't have? Or that I'm right and that you call it narcissistic to be right and stick to your guns while people who know they are wrong try to brow beat others into accepted the wrong things that they say?
Needing to be right is what people say when they are wrong and don't want to admit it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is the RAID 5 question.... Are you saying that I'm wrong and that you've been screwing people over by holding back info that we don't have? Or that I'm right and that you call it narcissistic to be right and stick to your guns while people who know they are wrong try to brow beat others into accepted the wrong things that they say?
No, it's because you have become a serious [moderated] about it. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Like "Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right", but it's actually both. You have to be right, come hell or high water, and you have to stop people from being idiots in your perception. So your line about conceding the argument? Once again, you can claim you are right, bask in that righteousness, and feel better about it. This is exhibited in other topics as well.
You can be wrong, dead wrong. And it's not possible to shape the world the way you want it. If people want to use RAID5, like we do on thousands of servers and SANs, let them. If they want to buy a SAN, let them. Don't expect everyone to bend to your will at any time just because you said so, using whatever "facts" you bring forth. Because some of it is fact, some of it is "fact". You are not that convincing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector for three years I've asked for people to provide math on when RAID 5 would be acceptable. That's a lot if vetting. Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right.
But let's face it, once name calling is needed, the argument was already conceded.
I'm not a math person, admittedly. Number crunching has never been my thing. As far as RAID 5 usage goes, any place where fault tolerance would be a benefit, as well as pooled drive capacity would be a good fit. For example, backup targets or DAG member databases are great uses for it.
Mission-critical or high-performance workloads would not be good choices.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is the RAID 5 question.... Are you saying that I'm wrong and that you've been screwing people over by holding back info that we don't have? Or that I'm right and that you call it narcissistic to be right and stick to your guns while people who know they are wrong try to brow beat others into accepted the wrong things that they say?
No, it's because you have become a serious [moderated] about it. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Like "Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right", but it's actually both. You have to be right, come hell or high water, and you have to stop people from being idiots in your perception. So your line about conceding the argument? Once again, you can claim you are right, bask in that righteousness, and feel better about it. This is exhibited in other topics as well.
You can be wrong, dead wrong. And it's not possible to shape the world the way you want it. If people want to use RAID5, like we do on thousands of servers and SANs, let them. If they want to buy a SAN, let them. Don't expect everyone to bend to your will at any time just because you said so, using whatever "facts" you bring forth. Because some of it is fact, some of it is "fact". You are not that convincing.
So the point is... stop giving advice and helping people because people are idiots and can get away with not doing the best that they can so, since people don't care and aren't logical then it's best to stop helping them and just allow them to hurt themselves and others.
My theory is... give a man the rope. If he climbs out of the hole, you did the right thing. If he hangs himself, he did the wrong thing. Helping people is never the wrong things in my book. I'd rather piss off ten people who don't care about their jobs or professions if I don't miss helping one person who genuinely is trying to learn or do the right thing. I'm not willing to sacrifice the innocent for the guilty, but will happily allow the guilty to sacrifice themselves if that helps to save the innocent. No one forces people to make bad decisions, that is entirely on them.
-
@alexntg said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector for three years I've asked for people to provide math on when RAID 5 would be acceptable. That's a lot if vetting. Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right.
But let's face it, once name calling is needed, the argument was already conceded.
I'm not a math person, admittedly. Number crunching has never been my thing. As far as RAID 5 usage goes, any place where fault tolerance would be a benefit, as well as pooled drive capacity would be a good fit. For example, backup targets or DAG member databases are great uses for it.
Mission-critical or high-performance workloads would not be good choices.
RAID 5 doesn't fit in those cases, that's the problem. "Fault Tolerance" has become a marketing term that people through around to hide behind. Fault tolerance is a horrible thing if it makes the system more fragile. Like the houses in a hurricane example. Two straw houses versus one brick house. One is redundant or "fault tolerant" and the other is reliable. Sure, two brick houses would be even better still, but that's not the point. Between the two available choices, the redundancy actually introduces the fragility by forces us to increase the failure rate to begin with.
This is why RAID 5 is always bad, it increases the risk out of the gate and effectively does nothing to fix it. The fault tolerant aspects of it are a farce in situations where it is cheap and the cost of making the fault tolerance work makes it too expensive. So RAID 5 either is a bad choice because it lacks the protection that people imagine or it cost to much and is just flaunting that you don't care about spending wisely. Both bad use cases.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@alexntg said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector for three years I've asked for people to provide math on when RAID 5 would be acceptable. That's a lot if vetting. Not letting people get away with being idiots isn't the same as needing to be right.
But let's face it, once name calling is needed, the argument was already conceded.
I'm not a math person, admittedly. Number crunching has never been my thing. As far as RAID 5 usage goes, any place where fault tolerance would be a benefit, as well as pooled drive capacity would be a good fit. For example, backup targets or DAG member databases are great uses for it.
Mission-critical or high-performance workloads would not be good choices.
RAID 5 doesn't fit in those cases, that's the problem. "Fault Tolerance" has become a marketing term that people through around to hide behind. Fault tolerance is a horrible thing if it makes the system more fragile. Like the houses in a hurricane example. Two straw houses versus one brick house. One is redundant or "fault tolerant" and the other is reliable. Sure, two brick houses would be even better still, but that's not the point. Between the two available choices, the redundancy actually introduces the fragility by forces us to increase the failure rate to begin with.
This is why RAID 5 is always bad, it increases the risk out of the gate and effectively does nothing to fix it. The fault tolerant aspects of it are a farce in situations where it is cheap and the cost of making the fault tolerance work makes it too expensive. So RAID 5 either is a bad choice because it lacks the protection that people imagine or it cost to much and is just flaunting that you don't care about spending wisely. Both bad use cases.
How would RAID 5 be riskier than RAID 0, which would be the other high-capacity option? With 0, if you lose a drive, you lose the array. With 5, if you lose a drive, there's a chance you might lose the array.
