Jihad needs scientists

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <ogp3u2t5etlcgrhm0rcup6065455p0s1gr@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On 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.

Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a program
that has a memory reference whose address is larger than physical
memory.

Wrong (and in part meaningless due to gibberish wording). It's
entirely possible to have VM systems which do not permit that
situation to occur.

All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine.

You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you?

I hate to break this to you, BAH, but, whoever he was, JMF's gone,
and he does not channel through you. If anything, you're trashing
his name every time you embarass yourself so.

You are known here by your words, and your words are bullshit.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <ur3vt2tl5lg3ujbtu14tgksbjd6s35h51j@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:59:04 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) Gave us:

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.

Batch (read DOS type batch file) driven backup routines worked
flawlessly for me for YEARS, and only backed up what was needed, and
never overwrote a newer file with an older file.

Using your method, a restore would have to start with Backup Tape
#1, then #2, then #3, ....finishing with the last backup tape made.
If you have been doing this for three years, you have 1000 tapes
to restore.

Not if he was using GFS.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Eeyore]

MassiveProng wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Software increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities.

Bwuahahahahah! How profound!

The last time you were synergistic was the last time you lit one of
your farts.

Do girls do that ?

Graham

 

[Phil Carmody]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <1172450823.621107.14360@h3g2000cwc.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.

Oh no there's that post again. The tree structure has gotten cross
linked. I do hope the incremental and transaction log are good. It would
be a shame to lose all this valuable stuff.

Usenet's not a reliable medium, so I'm not surprised. If google's
the one looking after the transaction logs, we're probably screwed.

We'd better start another duplicate thread of 16 thousand offtopic
posts just in case.

And given that this was up to 16000 posts about 2 weeks ago, I
think the 'probably' in my first paragraph has already kicked in.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

Again, I think you are confused about swapping. The OS only needs
to swap if it has to temporarily delete contents of memory whose
bit settings have to be restored exactly as they were.

Dancing that perverse line between wrong and meaningless - yes,
it's another BAH post!

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <erulrt$8qk_001@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <ersiq6$ui3$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In 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.

Now go read an annual report from Intel. PCs are not their highest
income producer. Controllers are.

Where in the anual report? I can't find any such statement in there.

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.

It is the very near future.

In fact your transactions do
require a computer. It is the one at the bank and not yours however.

You are missing the latest improvement. It is no longer the banks'
computers but the payees' computers.

The money is still in your account until your bank agrees it isn't. Fraud
from the other end can happen electronically or physically. All that is
happening is the risks are moving into the electronic world.

[....]

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.

The stuff we shipped to customers that have been used for decades
must have something right about it or it wouldn't have been installed.

Lots of copies of Windows got installed too. Your code only needs to be
no worse than the other's to get used.

[....]

It does the restore. The repair is another issue. Putting the system
back as it was in the first step.

This stategy does not deal with the problem if the problem has
been saved on that tape.

This is the "restore" process. It is not the "repair" process. They are
two different things.

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.

In most cases that I have observed, the repair and restore were
connected.

They may both need to be done but they are two different subjects. You
need to be able to get from the broken system to the situation as it
should be. You may be able to do this without doing a restore if
redundent information exists. If you can't do that, the first step
is usually to step back in time to where the problem hadn't happened yet.
You can then step forwards repeating the transactions.


[....]

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.

It is severely more complex. Just the requirements to do the
arithmetic could fill volumes.

How exactly did it become more complex? All the issues that exist today
existed in the past. There may be a lot more data to deal with but the
same situations still come up.

[....]

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.

This strategy cannot work in global finance. A good example of
an early attempt to solve these kinds of problems is something
called SABRE(sp?) which was an airline scheduling program that
ran on IBM machines.

You are simply wrong in this. You must have another source of information
to make the correction. If you don't have a source of information to make
the corrections with, it is completely imposible to make the corrections.
There are no if ands or buts about it.

Most 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.

You have to put a lot money in each account if you don't want
to hand over your paltry amounts to the bank in fees. People
like my parents simply do not have the luxury of lots of cash
on the asset list.

They are likely overe 55 they should change banks.

[....]

It protects against the mere failure of the bank's computer. This can
strand you.

This is not a solution for people who do not have enough money
to spread around.

I agree it isn't but there is nothing else you can trust to solve the
problem.

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.

There are lots of problems and you aren't even aware of most of them.

Name 2!

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <erui5d$8ss_001@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <ersfac$ui3$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <ers25a$8qk_002@s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erpp2s$c02$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[......]
If a CPU chip needs 1 hour to do a an add instruction, you can't make it
go faster by anything you code. Like I said it sets the upper limit on
the performance.

Sigh! If an ADD takes an hour and the computation has to be done
in less time, then you don't use the ADD instruction. You do
the addition by hand.

In other words: You need another CPU to do the operation.

Not at all. You can arithmetic by hand.

You will say anything to avoid admitting that you missed the point when I
said that the hardware is what sets the upper limit on the performance.

I am addressing your comment.

No, you suggested that the hardware did not set the limit on performance.
You were wrong in this.

..... and that set a limit on the performance didn't it.

No. The architecture could not do arithmetic. Software
increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities.

No, it bloody didn't. That hardware merely did not have an add
instruction. It could look up values in tables to get the answer. The
length of time to do this was finite. The hardware sets the limit on the
performance.

A PDP-8 couldn't subtract. An 8080 didn't have a multiply. A 1802 can't
do a sqrt(). All of these I have coded. None of that made the limiting
factor the software. In every case the hardware is the limiting factor.

/BAH

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.204cd75ceff51c5d98a004@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eruumf$vf3$7@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.

I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why?

There are lots of uninformed reasons and one big real one. They gain the
power to lock up your money in case of a dispute. It isn't some third
party that holds the cash until the matter is settled.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Phil Carmody]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <eruk81$8qk_003@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;

No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking
them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he
can't cash it again.

I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This
subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field
she /can/ make a correct statement in.

Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I
don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s,
(more securely even then than how the US or UK does it
presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even
seen a chequebook.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Eeyore]

Phil Carmody wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;

No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking
them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he
can't cash it again.

I see BAH doesn't even know 19th century tech either. This
subthread really is quite sad. I wonder if there's any field
she /can/ make a correct statement in.

Why anyone is using such pointless backward technology I
don't know. We've been internet banking here since the 80s,
(more securely even then than how the US or UK does it
presently, to boot) and no-one under about 30 has ever even
seen a chequebook.

Really ?

I recently(ish) opened a new account here in the UK and automatically got
traditional cheque and paying in books.

Graham

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[......]
This is what I have been trying to explain to you about the hardware
setting the upper limit on performance.

Sigh! The IBM 1620 had no arithmetic instructions. Arithmetic
was done "by hand" by looking up table entries.

..... and that set a limit on the performance didn't it.

No. The architecture could not do arithmetic. Software
increased the performance beyond the hardware's capabilities.

I see it's not just words related to technology, or economics,
that you redefine wildly, but in fact almost any word you chose.
I see today that you have decided that "capabilities" will mean
something entirely different from, and contradictory to, the
meaning understood by the whole English speaking world.

Maybe I'm being too generous about your own capabilities,
I'm not entirely sure you're sentient enough to actually
physically /chose/ which words you will use incorrectly,
I think it just happens.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

In article <eruu77$vf3$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <eruk81$8qk_003@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.....]
The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;

No, the bank at the other end defaces the checks it processes by marking
them. The payee no longer has a check that is legally defect free so he
can't cash it again.

There are banking services that will accept the scanned image of
a personal check for deposits.

in addition, the bills
you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them
gives them permission to access your account.

This is not true of any of the bills I checked the back of.

Wait a while, then. All of my monthly bills now say this.

There used
to be a procedural fire wall between the payee and your account;
it was the check clearing centers. These centers are what the Federal
Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process.

The Fed is attempting to make the process all electronic. I trust humans
about as little as I trust computers so I don't see much of a change in
security in this. Back when everything was on paper, someone could empty
your account with a fraud. All that has happened is that the tools have
changed a bit.

Not only have the tools changed, but the speed of the transactions
are now in picoseconds and the number of transactions made has
increased enormously/minute. In addition, no human is in the middle
of the process so there is nobody to notice if something goes wrong
and push the stop button.

a lot of this identify theft in the news is possible because
no human needs to OK transactions. Banking is no longer local
and most of it now is impersonal.

/BAH

 

In article <nav6u2dab8ldosfkqm40p3shn22253o7rn@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the
piece of paper you sent to him;


You're an idiot. Checks still move between banks, dipshit.

The banking system is in the process of eliminating that
movement. The check clearing centers are overwhelmed...
they say.

/BAH

 

In article <eruv57$vf3$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <erukjm$8qk_005@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <ersgq6$ui3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
The physical permission can be forged more easily than the electronic one.

When it gets to the bank,

My point is that the check NEVER gets back to the bank. This
is a new procedure. The goal is to eliminate handling the
paper checks.

An electronic image of the check goes to the bank of the payee and then to
the payer's. This just stops the paper from going to the payee's bank.
The electronic image at your end is all that really matters it is a
legally valid copy and good enough to evidence.

Now think about the physical piece of paper which includes all
necessary information to electronically access your account.
The payees all claim that they destroy the piece of paper. I
don't trust that process. Instead of one piece of hardcopy
representing a transaction, there are now oodles of electronic
copies floating around the networking system. This has all ingredients
for a mess.

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.

The problem of security has now moved to anyone who receives a check
for payment. All these people have to do is scan the check on their
computer system and their bank will accept the scans as if the
checks were physically deposited. Again, read the fine print
on your bills.

I read that fine print. There are no such words on the ones I checked.

They are now on all of mine. The last one to convert was my TV
cable bill.

BTW: there is an additional fact about the checks that adds security that
I will not mension here for obvious reasons. The check scanners are
intended to take checks that you took from your check book and wrote onto.
They would catch a laser printer output.

And my mother just bought an ink pen that is supposed to prevent
lifting their signatures. I don't understand this one but her
area's latest alert is to use a special pen to sign checks.

/BAH

 

In article <eruub1$vf3$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <erukqp$8qk_007@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <0or3u21neps56ocegu9nk7iaqqe31ajpau@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On 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?

The printer isn't analog. Reproducing the paper via printing
has removed information. All pixelation removes information.

Take a look at the output from a dye sublimation printer. Bring a
microscope.

Now take a good look at checks which have been returned to you.
There is more information to gather than simply the signature.
Sometimes you can even figure out what the person was eating
when s/he endorsed the check.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

Doesn't that involve online-edness? I smell a bad odour w.r.t.
PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering
financial data. I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is
quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing.
They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't
like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been
imported from Viet Nam and Mexico.


My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy
outright and have no information embeded that can tie the
transaction back to a personal bank account.

/BAH

 

In article <eruumf$vf3$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a
million years.

It's a contract?!! I won't look into that one.

/BAH

 

In article <eruukr$vf3$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <erthgg$413$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[...]
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.

Exactly. There are even more troublesome areas that I've identified.
Thus, I'm trying to train my bankers what they need to have in place
before I succumb to their insistence that I do my banking online.

I suspect that you have massively overrated the risks from what your bank
wants to do and under estimated the risks from the current situation. I
would simply change banks if I was unhappy about the bank I am using.
There is a local bank or two around here.

There is only one local bank left in my area; there are none left in
my mother's area.

It gets doubly troubling when you consider the credit cards etc we all
carry.

Credit cards already have processes in place and protections. Checking
does not, AFAICT.

Actually there are major weaknesses in the credit card system. Those
processes and protections are not secure.

Of course. But there has been decades to adjust to all the glaring
problems. This change w.r.t. checking has just started to happen
(within the last year or two).

At the moment, I'm trying to develop methods
of paying for things without using checks. So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

They can use a credit card. If they have the card with the same bank as
they have an account, they can pay the bill by talking to a teller if they
want.

My folks have a healthy allergy against credit. I do not like
having a credit card connected with the account that contains
all the cash I own. That's not a solution (because of the credit
card fraud).

I'm trying to develop a safe way for them to function. With
the removal of using checks, there is none that is as
convenient as checking so far.

/BAH

 

In article <eruvnn$vf3$9@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <eruj75$8qk_001@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <ershih$ui3$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
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.

In this case, I'm not talking about software bugs. I'm talking
about hardware bugs that caused the problem. Every OS has its
own approach to cover the hardware that is bad. If you do a
physical bit-to-bit copy for the backup, you also copy the bad spots.

Yes and that lets you recover, as the term still means, the the contents
of the disk at the time the image was made. The ability to repair damage
is not the same question as recovery.



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.

It cannot tell you that something is missing if it's not there.
It takes a human to decide that.

That is incorrect. Take this example of a list of five things:
**** begin list of five items ****
A bunny
A cat
A dog
**** end list of five items ****

Can software look at that and tell if there are items missing? This is a
simple case of redundant information allowing the detection of an error.
It is the sort of thing that is in the first steps of repairing.

I know what I'm talking about. In the case of sources, if your
procedures don't make you use them once in a while, they can
disappear and be gone for years before anybody discovers that they're
missing. Without a backup safe policy that covers at least a decade,
you have to have some other way to make sure files don't disappear
with your notice.

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.

No, it's missing some...two, I think. The third isn't necessary.

What is missing?

The access date-time, last-written date-time, and last-read date-time
should be three separate date-time fields. There is a fourth
that is moderately useful, but I can't recall what that one is.

[....]
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.

It means that such a system has to have some way to "replay" the
transactions (all of them in sequential order) from the point of
the snapshot. This is also a form of a backup that needs to be
kept in at least three geographical, (and networked, I think) at
once.

No, you didn't read the above carefully enough. You can work backwards
through the data and still get the right answer.

That takes a lot of time and care. Some transaction processing
doesn't have the luxury of time.

You may not have to
process back to the snapshot. The information needs to be stored in
multiple locations but these days that only takes a little money to do.

Another problem that needs to be solved is off-site storage that
doesn't degrade and still be able to read after a decade of
hard/software evolution. I don't think anybody has produced
a method yet. There is one going on but the only way to verify
that it works is to wait a decade ;-).


This kind of testing could really use a time machine.

/BAH

 

In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
[SNIP]

I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included
in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be
associated with your insane ignorant gibbering.

However, let me just say that I disagree with basically
every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless
to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong.

I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write
to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum.

Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous
times every day?

/BAH