Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can also build an EXE, or set of EXEs, on a machine that hasKen Smith wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
VM isn't swapping. VM allows the OS to manage smaller chunks
of memory rather than segments.
That is completely and totally worng. "Virtual memory" means quite
literally "memory that is not real".
No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical
memory.
No, not only the addressing appears larger. The total memory appears to
be more. Merely allowing an address space that is larger is merely
address translation. You only get into virtual memory when it appears the
programs as though the machine has more memory than there is physical RAM.
This is exactly what I was telling you when I directed you to how the word
"virtual" is defined.
To the processor itself the VM should be transparent. It should 'look' and
behave like acres of RAM. A good example of where the such a task should be
offloaded from the CPU itself.
Swap out from where? If the CPU architecture has write-throughIn article <45E1CD23.26249F55@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
No, not only the addressing appears larger. The total memory appears to
be more. Merely allowing an address space that is larger is merely
address translation. You only get into virtual memory when it appears the
programs as though the machine has more memory than there is physical RAM.
This is exactly what I was telling you when I directed you to how the word
"virtual" is defined.
To the processor itself the VM should be transparent. It should 'look' and
behave like acres of RAM. A good example of where the such a task should be
offloaded from the CPU itself.
No, that isn't done. VM systems are also usually multitaskers. You could
create one that isn't but the rule is that they are. Here's how it the
operation breaks down in a multitask environment.
- Running Task A
- Task A does a page fault on the real memory
- OS gets an interrupt
- Perhaps some checking is done here
- OS looks for the page to swap out
Priorities are usually set based on hardware at the level you're- Complex issue of priority on swapping skipped here.
- OS marks the outgoing page to be not usable
- OS starts swap actions going
- OS looks for a task that can run now
- OS remembers some stuff about task priorities
- OS switches to new context
- Task B runs
- Swap action completes
- OS gets interrupt
- OS marks the new page as ready to go
- OS checks the task priority information
- OS maybe switches tasks
- Task A or B runs depending on what OS decided.
This way, a lower priority task can do useful stuff while we wait for the
pages to swap.
Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a programOn Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:27:46 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical
memory.
It means that code segments that would be in MEMORY has to be
offloaded onto slower, more permanent (intended for) storage mediums
to be recalled later. The system takes a speed hit with VM, but is
permitted to do tasks that would otherwise not be doable.
You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you?All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine.
In this case, I'm not talking about software bugs. I'm talkingIn article <errvlm$8ss_004@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpnd5$c02$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
No, if the copy checks the dates, you can load the backups in any order.
What you do in practice is mount the complete backup and then the newest
incremental. You then mount the previous incremental and then the one
before that.
This is one way to do a full restore. Note that it may also restore
the cause of the problem.
It only restores things to as they were. It doesn't fix any buggy code in
the process. This is as much as you can ask of a restore. Repair
software is another issue.
It cannot tell you that something is missing if it's not there.If your software is any good, it will let you know when you can stop. All
that's needed is to record the dates on all of the files. A fairly simple
script can tell you if you have more to do.
Software cannot tell you if the file you want is no longer on
storage.
What the heck do you mean by that? Obviously software can tell you if a
file exists or not. All it needs is a list of all the files that do
exist.
No, it's missing some...two, I think. The third isn't necessary.Another method was to do a full backup save each day. This will
work until you find that you lost a source file sometime in the
last 12 years. Now how do you find the last save of that file?
This is not a problem in practice if the copy is smart about dates.
AFAIK, only our system had enough dates stored in each file's
RIB (retrieval information block) that could do this.
On a Linux machine, there is enough information to do it.
It means that such a system has to have some way to "replay" theThe usual practice is to do a full backup every so often and incremental
ones in between.
Yes but only for static storage. This will not cover data
that is transaction-based.
Yes it does cover transaction based data. Take the example of banking
information. The account balances as of, lets say, midnight are stored.
From that point forwards, you have the transaction records. The
transaction records for a given account contains not just the movement of
the money but other information such as the new total. In this case one
needs only look back in time for each account to the last time there was a
break in the transactions. In a real time system, when you are doing
rapid transactions, the totals are always out of date. The first
transaction after a break, has a correct total.
Nope. I happen to know a lot about what is necessary so youOn Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:24:50 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
In article <eos0u259h8fld2e3k6mhot9h6kobif44dj@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 07 13:24:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
Note that you do not have to swap code if it's reentrant; you can
overwrite it in the RAM if the code segment resides on a device
whose retrieval speed is equiavlent to memory fetches. OTOH,
you do have to preserve data.
RULES:
2 500MB code blocks that are in the form of a FILE (FileA, FileB)
that has to be processed in 500MB RAM.
You're solution:
Run (we call this the name of the executable) both together on the
machine at the same time.
The REAL solution:
A simple batch file.
run FileA
run FileB
You are assessing this from the user POV.
You are full of shit.
And you are forgetting the code that has to read in your typedI am assessing the solution I gave based on
the criteria of the discussion. That criteria was "without
interference". A concept you seem to be all to unknowing about.
You seem to like forgetting parameters, especially those of a debate
or discussion.
Son, go read some real OS code. Notice how much code there is.There is a lot of
background code executing behind the user mode runs of fileA.exe
and fileB.exe.
You're an idiot. Consider that a "branch prediction".
If the JOB goes into any wait state for resources, the systemConsider the number and locations of instructions
needed to do the I/O in behalf of those two user EXE files.
All the more reason to run them one at a time, dipshit.
The batch file makes it a single button operation, and the JOB will
get done faster.
Yea, the only conclusion from this post is that you have no ideaPaired and run together, it will swap out forever, and the job will
take considerably longer.
Got a clue yet?
No. I'm talking about processes that handle checks.jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against your
account
without
any physical permission written by you?
You mean a debit ?
I'm trying to establish procedures that don't include checks.I could hardly live without it.
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy theIn article <45E1B4F4.1B7C7FA2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against
your account
without
any physical permission written by you?
You mean a debit ?
I could hardly live without it.
Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer
of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time
since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check.
The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
I'm still getting my cancelled checks back but there is huge pressureKen Smith wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against
your account without any physical permission written by you?
You mean a debit ?
I could hardly live without it.
Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer
of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time
since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check.
Back in 1971 when I opened my first bank account, they still posted you the
paid
cheques. That soon disappeared.
This is a different problem; I'm also working on that one.Electronic debits are invaluable. I just signed up to a telecoms provider
whose
call charges are insanely cheap. They won't accept cheques and stuff. It all
has
to be done electronically.
http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php#
I'm still having some trouble believing this. Landline calls inside the UK
are 4
pence regardless of duration ! Calling the USA / Canada / France / Germany /
Singapore even ! costs 1p per minute plus 4p connection charge.
My point is that the check NEVER gets back to the bank. ThisIn article <ers29b$8qk_003@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpmth$c02$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still write
a check or see a teller if I want.
For now.
.... and thus it will remain.
I can pay a bill while I'm at work of
on vacation. I have lost nothing.
You have lost the physical paper trail. Doesn't it bother you
that electronic checks can be applied against your account without
any physical permission written by you?
The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one.
When it gets to the bank,
The problem of security has now moved to anyone who receives a checkthey do all the work electronically. As a
result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done
electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line
banking will not protect me.
In addition, you have the information on both sides of thatKen Smith wrote:
In article <ers29b$8qk_003@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpmth$c02$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still write
a check or see a teller if I want.
For now.
... and thus it will remain.
I can pay a bill while I'm at work of
on vacation. I have lost nothing.
You have lost the physical paper trail. Doesn't it bother you
that electronic checks can be applied against your account without
any physical permission written by you?
The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one.
When it gets to the bank, they do all the work electronically. As a
result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done
electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line
banking will not protect me.
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printingOn Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
Never heard of a printer, eh?
You're starting to make those tracks again.You are more retarded than the BAHTard is.
Exactly. There are even more troublesome areas that I've identified.In article <aee0c$45e1db91$cdd08469$12026@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <ers29b$8qk_003@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpmth$c02$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still
write
a check or see a teller if I want.
For now.
... and thus it will remain.
I can pay a bill while I'm at work of
on vacation. I have lost nothing.
You have lost the physical paper trail. Doesn't it bother you
that electronic checks can be applied against your account without
any physical permission written by you?
The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one.
When it gets to the bank, they do all the work electronically. As a
result, whether I do on line banking or not, the actual work is done
electronically. If the security in the bank and broken, not using on line
banking will not protect me.
If you have a paper audit trail you have clear evidence
of all your transactions in your hands. All other arguments
are without substance.
I don't have real paper any more. Most people don't. The statement
arrives with a picture of the check not the real one. Since the picture
is produced electronically, it is no better than the electronic record
that made it. If someone fakes up a check from me, it would be quite hard
for me to prove it isn't real. The only hope would be that they wouldn't
think to change the check number on it so that the bank would have two
with the same number.
Even if I can prove the issue, it will take time for me to do so. There
is always some risk in any system that allows paper or electronics to
cause money to move.
Credit cards already have processes in place and protections. CheckingIt gets doubly troubling when you consider the credit cards etc we all
carry.
Now go google all news items about TJX over the last four weeks.On Sun, 25 Feb 07 13:17:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
I can pay a bill while I'm at work of
on vacation. I have lost nothing.
You have lost the physical paper trail.
ALL online transactions have the capacity to print a bon-fide
RECIEPT, you fucking retard.
Doesn't it bother you
that electronic checks can be applied against your account without
any physical permission written by you?
No, they cannot. I am the ONLY authenticator of EVERY transaction.
Now go read an annual report from Intel. PCs are not their highestIn article <ers3rf$8qk_001@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpov3$c02$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
You are assuming that I don't know about things I don't care about this is
a serious error on your part. I know that there are many people out there
who have not yet seen the light and still run Windows. I know that these
people are doomed to lose valuable data at some time in the future. I
know that fixing this will require some software that gets around things
Windows does. I don't run Windows. I run Linux. As a result, I want to
back up my data on a Linux box. I also want to protect my self from the
bad effects of Windows losing data on someone else's machine. This is why
I raise the issue.
And you keep assuming, erroneously, that this type of usage is the
majority of computing in the world. It is not.
Yes, it is. Look at how many homes have PCs in them today. This is the
big market for computers today. It massively out weights the business
usage.
It is the very near future.I am trying to
talk about the day when everybody has to have a computer to do any
financial transactions.
You are changing the subject to the future.
You are missing the latest improvement. It is no longer the banks'In fact your transactions do
require a computer. It is the one at the bank and not yours however.
The stuff we shipped to customers that have been used for decadesEither, you just lack imagination about what an evil person can do or you
over estimate the problem caused by something like a lightning strike. An
evil person can destroy any copy on any machine he has the ability to
write to. This means that he can delete all the data on the remote
machines too. This is why you need a write only memory in the system.
This subject is too complex to discuss without some basic computing
knowledge. You don't seem to have that specialized knowledge. I've
spent man-years on these kinds of problems.
You are attempting to get out of discussing an issue because you know that
you have already made enough errors in the area to discredit everything
you say. You claim a lot of knowledge. Your knowledge is from a very
narrow base. You also claim to have spent "man years" this doesn't mean
you got it right or even that you know anything. It just means you spent
a lot of time.
This stategy does not deal with the problem if the problem has[....]
YOu seem to be talking about a bit-to-bit copy. That will also
copy errors which don't exist on the output device.
I am talking of a complete and total and correct image of the drive.
I know you are. A complete and total and correct image of the
drive will also include its bad spots. It is possible (and
likely) that the reason you are rebuilding your system is becaues
a bad spot happened on a crucial point of the file system. The
you are describing will simply restore the problem that wiped
out your disk.
It does the restore. The repair is another issue. Putting the system
back as it was in the first step.
In most cases that I have observed, the repair and restore wereIt
is a bit by bit copy. Usually it is stored onto a larger drive without
compression. If something goes bad, you can "loop back and mount" the
image. This gives you a read only exact copy of the file system as it
was. You then can simply fix the damaged file system.
Now go back to my reply ^up there^. You have a flaw in your
backup strategy.
No, I don't. You have confused doing a repair with doing a restore. The
restore method I suggested is correct. If you now want to discuss the new
topic of repair, then we can begin that topic.
You only prove them false in your fantasies, not in real life.No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few
times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the
modification
date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part.
You are very inexperience w.r.t. this computing task.
You seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have.
I am not claiming; it is a fact that I have the knowledge..and
extensive work experience.
You have also made claims about hardware issues, that are easy to prove to
be false.
It is severely more complex. Just the requirements to do the[....]
It in fact can be easier. I knew someone who wrote a lot of the software
used by banks and insurance companies. They stored the data transaction
by transaction, daily and incrementals, monthly near full backups and
yearly total backups. The system for recovery was very well tested and
automated. After every software change, they had to requalify the code.
This meant restoring an old back up and making a new one and restoring
that. I assume that software like that is still the common practice.
It's even more complicated. I yak daily with a guy who does this work.
I doubt that it has become seriously more complex. The issues all existed
at that time. The amount of data is all that has increased not the
complexity of the question.
This strategy cannot work in global finance. A good example of[....]
It doesn't matter if you bank on line or in person. If you bank's
computers fail, you can't do a transaction. If they lose all their
computer data, you will have a devil of a time getting at your money.
This is why I always try to keep more than one bank, a couple of credit
cards and some cash. I know that there is some risk that a bank may have
a windows machine connected to the important information.
Your backup strategy for this type of computing is mulitple copies.
Yes, muliple copies of the data in one form or another is what you need.
The information must be stored more than once if you expect to be able to
put back the data that has been lost. There is no way around this. Error
correcting codes are just ways of storing the information more than once
so even the storage systems and modern RAM chips do this.
You have to put a lot money in each account if you don't wantMost people don't have enough money to maintain multiple accounts.
Most people can do it. You don't need to put a lot of money into a bank
to have an account there.
This is not a solution for people who do not have enough moneyWith most banks, just having had an account for
a while will get you some form of loan on just your say so. Overdraft
protection is the common loan situation.
Most people don't check their single account activity; having
many accounts will not solve this problem but mutiply instances
of it.
It protects against the mere failure of the bank's computer. This can
strand you.
There are lots of problems and you aren't even aware of most of them.To use your stategy, you have to keep up with your backup
maintenance for many accounts rather than one. Every bank's timing
is different. This is not a solution.
It solves the problem of failure. Evil activity is solved by checking the
balances etc. There are two problems that must be covered. You ignore
one and don't assume I've already thought of how to solve the other.
And the source you found missing has been missing for a year.On Sun, 25 Feb 07 13:51:24 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
Oh, good grief. You have a serious design flaw here if you are
overwriting you backup copies.
They are sequenced, dipshit. One week's backups go on a set of
drives. The following week goes onto another set of drives. The week
following that (week 3 ) goes on week one's drives.
You could be a bit more clueless, just not in this life.
Eric Gisse wrote:
snip
IIRC, Guisse did a similar stunt when an earlier threshold wasThat's another four more posts to add to the total then !
Seventeen thousand here we come.
How about PayPal, or the equivalent?So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.
Yes a lack of ketchup for sure. I wonder why this thread bothers him soKen Smith wrote:
In article <1172450968.036513.264110@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
FOR FUCKS SAKE LET THIS THREAD DIE
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
16 THOUSAND OFFTOPIC POSTS. SHUT THE FUCK UP
ALL OF YOU. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I think someone isn't getting enough ketchup.
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2005/11/19/scripts/catchup.shtml
If you look at his sci.physics posting history you'll
see he's spending his time playing with crackpots and
cranks.
The term "swap out" has a specific meaning in virtual memory systems. ItIn article <ersjj1$ui3$9@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <45E1CD23.26249F55@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[....]
No, not only the addressing appears larger. The total memory appears to
be more. Merely allowing an address space that is larger is merely
address translation. You only get into virtual memory when it appears the
programs as though the machine has more memory than there is physical RAM.
This is exactly what I was telling you when I directed you to how the word
"virtual" is defined.
To the processor itself the VM should be transparent. It should 'look' and
behave like acres of RAM. A good example of where the such a task should be
offloaded from the CPU itself.
No, that isn't done. VM systems are also usually multitaskers. You could
create one that isn't but the rule is that they are. Here's how it the
operation breaks down in a multitask environment.
- Running Task A
- Task A does a page fault on the real memory
- OS gets an interrupt
- Perhaps some checking is done here
- OS looks for the page to swap out
Swap out from where? If the CPU architecture has write-through
cache you don't have to move the contents of the page you need
to remove in order to fetch the page that Task A needs from
memory.
No, they aren't, at least in any reasonable system they aren't. The- Complex issue of priority on swapping skipped here.
- OS marks the outgoing page to be not usable
- OS starts swap actions going
- OS looks for a task that can run now
- OS remembers some stuff about task priorities
- OS switches to new context
- Task B runs
- Swap action completes
- OS gets interrupt
- OS marks the new page as ready to go
- OS checks the task priority information
- OS maybe switches tasks
- Task A or B runs depending on what OS decided.
This way, a lower priority task can do useful stuff while we wait for the
pages to swap.
Priorities are usually set based on hardware at the level you're
talking about.