Jihad needs scientists

In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.


Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site
or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try
to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something!

Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet
skills.

It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the
maternal kind.

/BAH

 

In article <es9eh9$q95$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <es95ji$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es6rgr$kgg$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es6h92$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
snip

Honey, you are not paranoid enough.

I have suggested the reasonable way to deal with the problems of doing a
back up.

Your methods have serious problems.

You are so determined to prove me wrong

It was my job to find all flaws of all processes, systems,
and designs and think of solutions. I didn't earn the title
den mother for nothing.

that you haven't even
read and thought about what I wrote.

I've read and thought about your ideas over 30 years ago. This
is all old stuff and I'm learning that this is another piece
of knowledge that seems to have been lost.

You just bark some new claim at the
thread and assume that it will convince people.

This is not a conflict of who knows more than the other. These
are serious matters and there is no room for pissing contests.

[....]
This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not. Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.
Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night. Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

The disks and computer have gotten faster more than they have gotten
bigger.

Sure they've become "faster". The capacity increases have stayed
ahead of processing speeds.

Today it takes less time to image my 250G disk than it did the
10M Winchester that was the first one I imaged.

I don't believe imaged the Winchester. I think you dumped it to
magtape or some similar unit record medium. If you had two
drives with one dedicated for backups, then you worked for
a very rich company.

[.....]
None of this changes the fact that you mixed up back up, restore and
repair. The whole reason you do a back up is because files can be changed
when they shouldn't. This is not a question we have been arguing.

I have, almost consistently, been talking about files disappearing.
Plus all the things that can go wrong along the way.

Yes so we have always agreed that the reason you do a backup is because
the files can change at times when they shouldn't. Hopefully we can now
put this question away.

[.....]
As I pointed out, this is exactly what a restore would do. It puts the
files back as they were on some date in the past. If the files are not
right on that date, those incorrect files are exactly what you want a
backup to have on it. You have mixed up the question with one of repair.
That is a different topic.

If you are restoring the virus that is causing you to rebuild your
system, you will be rebuiling your computer system over and
over and all over again. You will never, ever, get out of
restore mode until you stop restoring the virus (a.k.a. the mess
maker).

No, I am not completely stupid, as you seem to want to imply.

I am not trying to imply this. YOu seem to be showing it all on
your own.

The restore
puts things back to the way they were. This means that if the system was
broken on a given day, that exact situation is recorded on the back up.
An earlier back up would have the system as it was on some day before
things went wrong. This is exactly what you want back ups to act like.
They are complete pictures of the system on a given day. The restore
process lets you put things back as they were. The repair process is how
you make the system correct.

Both steps involved making crucial backup decisions. YOu have to
make these decisions when you design your backup process. You
cannot tell when the system got infected unless it's a poorly
designed virus. YOu could have been saving the virus on each
and every backup tape. This implies that you have no clean
system backups. The repair process and restore process has to
be done at the same time. Both "steps" have to be done
with the same action and cannot be separated as you seem
to claim here.


/BAH

 

[Phil Carmody]

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <es9g7v$q95$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es92nu$8ss_004@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the
swap file?

If you think otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about. This
is what "swapping" in a VM system implies.

It didn't in any VM system JMF implemented. I'm unaware of
any other OS that used the term in that wasy.

You're unaware of techical terminology that's been in use for
decades then.

But we knew this already as you've demonstrated it about a
dozen times already in this thread.

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 <eiogu2pciolp604iscrss63q7ni22aof4e@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 07 13:22:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

The case that I brought up was database; with databases, the data
is always a moving target that can never be snap-shot with accuracy.


You're an idiot. That would only be true for a LIVE database.

That's what I'm talking about.

If
you are doing file maintenance, the database would be a static file,

There are plenty of data bases in today's online world that can never
be taken off-line. Those are the ones that I've been talking
about when I wrote that a snapshot is a viaable way to backup up
these data bases.

and that server would be offline.

I can't be offline. Access has to be 7x24x360xdecades.

ANY file can be snapshot accurately.

No, it cannot.

A database table that is
fragmented over a volume gets written in backup as a single block of
data, and nothing is lost. Some lost space is gained in fact.
Database engines allow table optimization which essentially defrags a
single file.

Now think about airline scheduling systems. These are the ones
that have used computers the longest.

/BAH

 

In article <6kpgu2ttpqrpknj3ociqikch36l2jt4s4v@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:17:14 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


With Check21 the original CHECK NO LONGER EXISTS, you MORON!


And I told you, dipshit. MY Bank KEEPS and retains the checks, and
I was NEVER talking about "check 21", even if your retarded ass was.

I have requested the same from my bank. However, the banks of the
payees don't honor my requests. The check I wrote my mother
was supposedly destroyed by her bank when they electronically
transferred the monies out of my account into hers. All of my
monthly bills now have a caveat on the back that says that
writing them a personal check gives them the right to debit
my account.

Read all of that fine print. Now, if you've never sent them
a personal check, it is possible that they don't include
these claims of access permission on your bills.

/BAH

 

In article <htpgu2hu1a8nsnpurj49tmu5asc3klkof2@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:26:05 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You really need to get back on your meds, Dimbulb.

Fuck you, Lithium head.

You're going to
have a stroke.

You first, bonehead. Did you posting that retarded crap strain your
two neurons?

You said you will get canceled checks returned to you, which is *not*
true.

Yes, I get back the checks I write to my landlord. If I request
them, I'll get the actual checks back.

Any that aren't routed through entirely local bank branches
(and many of these) will *not* be returned to you because the
physical check is destroyed in the electronic routing process.

Landlord makes deposit.

If you landlord signs up for the Check 21 service, he will
no longer make a deposit by handing the piece of paper to his
bank. He will scan the check whose image is received the
his bank.

Check goes to my bank, I get check back.

This step in the check-writing process is being eliminated.

Pretty simple shit.

It used to be. It is not any more.

/BAH

 

In article <es9g64$q95$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <es9csr$8qk_001@s793.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es848a$2hl$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es6mqn$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es0bs3$joa$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
Where in the anual report? I can't find any such statement in there.

Intel is divided into divisions. Compare each division. The one
that has the controller product line does more business than the
one that has the PC product line.

I still can't find it. I searched the PDF version of the report for word
"division" and nothing like that came up. Do you have a page number?

You have to read the whole report and then compare the different
product areas.

I have read the damn thing. Now tell me where these number are.

You'll have to wait for this answer. Last year's had separate
sections discussing the PC biz and the embedded controller biz.
The embedded piece took in a lot more money but I don't recall
the percentage. I do recall it was significant.

[.....]
Now we can perhaps start to talk about repairing a system. Problems are
often like cancers. A problem with a file can cause a database to get
worse over time. If you back up to the one where the damage is limited,
you can then repair the file at fault and start working forwards. You
also have the option of going back to an even earlier version and starting
there.

Not for data bases such as SABRE. Airline reservation systems
don't care about data that is already in the past.

That is completely wrong. If I make a reservation right now:
..... time passes .....
and now I go to the airport, they'd better still remember that I made it.

So now what did you really mean.

Now consider the scenario:

You make a reservation.
Time passes....
System gets corrupted causing a rebuild of the system from
a snapshot made just before your reservation was made.
Time passes....
You go to the airport and find that somebody has your seat.

It's too
complicated to go into detail.

Obviously the above isn't.

Your scenario assumes no errors nor corrections. Your scenario
assumes that somebody will notice if your reservation disappears.
Using your backup approach will never notice.

Now consider that a virus is
in the midst of your files you are going to restore.

Yes, I've considered it. The statements I've made have all been checked
and are still correct with this consideration.

Sure, your statements can be considered to be correct IFF this
specific problem is ignored. My biz couldn't ignore it.
Shit happens; we had to deal with it....all of it.

[....]
For a Microsoft system, the only option that works is a bit by bit image
of the hard drive made by some non-Microsoft code.

Again, if you do a bit by bit type of backup, you also save the
bad spots of the disk.

Yes, exactly. When will you stop pretending that it is a new idea? This
is exactly what you want a back up to do.

Not a backup. You don't want a backup to save the junk. You want
a clean save so you don't have to deal with errors you've already
eliminated.

You don't want a back up
program to pretend it knows what is not important enough to save.

You want the backup program to be versatile enough so that the
person issuing the commands to the program can have the choices
of what and how a backup should be done.

You
want a complete record.

Not always.

The OS refuses to let
you back up some of the important stuff. Since it is Windows and not
Linux, we know that the system was not in the state it should be for the
get go. The best you can do is put the mess back the way it was.

And what if the source of the problem is the way it was?

Then you have restored the system to the way it was. This is what
"restore" means. It is a different word from "repair" or "correct".

Oh, now you're turning pedantic on the discussion. That must mean
that you do understand and cannot admit you learned something from
me.

On a Windows system, you always want to keep your data on a different
drive than the OS. This make backing up the good stuff much easier.

How do you separate the data from the OS when windows has the
annoying habit of merging both?

Go read what I wrote. You can direct all well written Windows programs
about where to put their data. There are very few that won't let you. I
am not arguing that Windows is less than a dreadful OS. I am suggesting
how to make the best of a bad situation.


When a Microsoft system goes very bad the first thing to try is restoring
to the previous image. This doesn't mean that you have really fixed the
problem but it does let you see if the previous version would work at all.

You may have one of those rare cases where the hardware has failed.

Very often you are forced to reinstall a bunch of software and then copy
the data back in from the backup.

How are you going to choose which files to copy from the backup if
it's bit-by-bit save of the disk? You can't.

Now we are getting to the subject of repair. This is a more complex
subject than just making backups. This is why I suggested that the data
be on a different disk. This means you know most of what needs to be
copied right away. For programs you may be in for a lot of work. On the
Windows OS, the installed programs step all over each other. If you have
been a good person, you will still have the install disks and know which
order they got installed to make a running system.

Look, either you're doing a file backup or you're doing a 100% bit-to-bit
copy of the disk. Your last paragraph has just switched to the
file backup.

[....]
What if it
is a problem that you can't control?

What do mean by that?

It can be many things. The OS has a bug; the network has a bug;
your apps created an environment that causes the glitch in cooperation
with timing, the phase of the moon, and other events.

You mean a bug, a bug, a bug and perhaps a hardware problem.

Or a software aspect that breaks the hardware.

Assuming you mean some bit of software that simply
takes it in its head to mess things up from time to time, there are still
things that you can do. All such things are very ugly.

Some days, problems can happen with the position of a certain pattern
of bits in a particular location of memory.

Yes, this is what I said.

[....]
This doesn't increase complexity. It only increases speed.

How quickly can you stop a semi truck going at the speed of light
in a vacuum? Start your timing just notice a problem.

Now you are just being silly. You haven't been able to say how it is more
complex because it isn't it is the speed that has increased.

If rates of events increase, you have enormous complexity. An analogy
is automobile traffic. If the road capacity is filled 100%, getting from
here to there becomes extremely complex. If the road has no traffic
on it, the trip isn't difficult at all.

Most of the time we could hit the
panic button and physically shut down a runaway system.

That was always a near useless option.

You are telling me that this was useless? I still pull the plug
when I see somebody sniffing my bits over the net.

You think you see that. Now what is it that is really happening? You saw
a light blink on your modem, I assume.

Yes. and I didn't request downloads. So if stuff is happening without
my permission, I throw the power switch.

[....]
I am talking about the application I referred to in another post.
It was called SABRE. It was probably the first computer aided
transaction processing system.

What was the date? There was one that I know of in 1972.

I think it was around that time. Watching that application
and how it evolved would be intersting.

oh, jezusfuckinghchrist. Go back and read the posts.

Like I thought. You don't have 2.

We had thousands.

Like I thought you have none at all. The reason I asked you to name two
was because I thought I detected the usual blowing smoke trick where you
imply that you have already proven something at some earlier point in the
thread.

I've been discussion three problems, specifially. Anybody who
understood those could think of scenarios in the thousands.

1. A snapshot of data is useless in restoring a system; example SABRE.
2. The backup used to restore the system contains the cause of
the system's original demise.

3. A file disappears with no detection until long after the backup
tapes have been written over.

/BAH

 

[krw]

In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2052091685c10ec298a03a@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <es928h$8ss_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <es829g$2hl$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <87fy8paqu8.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

I think his point is that access time is part of the metadata
that accompanies the file.

It is not stored into the data part of the file. The file's sectors are
not rewritten so there is no change to that part. I believe that it is
the time you close the file and not the time you opened it that actually
ends up stored BTW. None of this matters to the backup method I
suggested.



So we have 3 cases:
- If it doesn't change the last-accessed time, then the "last-
accessed time" is in fact a falsity;
- If it changes the last-accessed time and stores the new access,
then the restored file will not be what it was a backup of;
- If it changes the last-accessed time but doesn't store the new
time, then the file in the backup is not identical to the
filesystem that it is a backup of.
All three of these are unsatisfactory. Therefore I contend that
this field is indeed not a useful field when it comes to considering
the behaviour of backups.

No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover in
the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the
drive.

That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk.

Modern disks don't show their "bad spots" to the system.

I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

They're
replaced from a cache of hidden sectors as they fail. This doesn't
mean it isn't possible to lose data when one fails though.

So what does a bit-to-bit copy of the physical mean? Bit-to-bit
implies all bits, including the ones covered by the error handler...
doesn't it?

Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied. They no
longer exist. In fact one should never see a bad sector on a disk.
If you do, throw it away. The spare sectors have been used up and
data sectors (the ones you paid for) are being used for replacements.
This indicates a severely damaged drive.

Drives today use LBA (Logical Block Addressing). When a sector
starts failing (retry threshold exceeded) the drive moves the data on
that sector to a spare/reserved sector (hopefully) close by, then
points to the new sector and marks the old as bad. The replacement
sector is mapped to be in the same logical position as the one it
replaced, even though it is not physically adjacent. When a sector-
for-sector copy is done to another drive (for instance) sectors are
copied from the source in logical (not physical) order to the target
(where they often end up in physical order).

Oh...were they using the term incorrectly again?

Words change meaning, levels of indirection are thrown in, confusion
reigns, Dimbulb is wrong (and swears a blue streak to prove it).
Nothing ever changes.

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esbpbe$8qk_003@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9djf$q95$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es928h$8ss_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es829g$2hl$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[...]
No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover in
the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the
drive.

That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk.
I'm assuming that you do want an image of the disk and not drive.

Preseving the bad spots is a feature not a problem. It is a record of
exactly how things were warts and all that you want to keep.

And when you restore the image, you also restore the errors. Now,
what if it is those errors which are creating the mess that
is causing you to have to rebuild your system? This is the
point I've been trying to make but you don't seem to be able
to read.

You keep saying that like its not something I already knew. The backup is
supposed to be an image of the system as it was. If the system was broken
then that is *exactly* what the backup should be storing. You can't seem
to get it through you head that the subject of making a back up and doing
a repair are two different topics.

You are in error. Last access is an important datum.

Please explain exactly how you thing the last access is important.

I already have. You have a static file which is used all the time,
but never written. "Used all the time" means that it is accessed
often. If you only save files with the date-time stamps of
"last modified", you never get this one on any tapes other than
a full save.

Ok, I have a file which is written onto a full save. I have this and many
previous full saves. All of these full saves have the file on it
unchanged. I also have some incremental backups which don't have that
file. This is all exactly as it should be. There is no problem at all.

The unchanged file should not go onto the incremental because this would
just make the incremental into a "partial save". It would be needlessly
large.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esbseb$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9eh9$q95$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es95ji$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es6rgr$kgg$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es6h92$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
snip

Honey, you are not paranoid enough.

I have suggested the reasonable way to deal with the problems of doing a
back up.

Your methods have serious problems.

No, it doesn't. You keep putting statements like that in here but you
have yet to point out a single actual real problem.

[....]

You just bark some new claim at the
thread and assume that it will convince people.

This is not a conflict of who knows more than the other. These
are serious matters and there is no room for pissing contests.

You seem to be trying to convince people that you know stuff. But when
put to the test it turns out you have them wrong. You claim there are
problems with my method of doing a backup but you have yet to be able to
state what this problem actually is.


[....]

The disks and computer have gotten faster more than they have gotten
bigger.

Sure they've become "faster". The capacity increases have stayed
ahead of processing speeds.

Nope.

Today it takes less time to image my 250G disk than it did the
10M Winchester that was the first one I imaged.

I don't believe imaged the Winchester. I think you dumped it to
magtape or some similar unit record medium. If you had two
drives with one dedicated for backups, then you worked for
a very rich company.

Actually I did image it to another Winchester and for a very good reason.

Most of the time I made an image onto tape(s). It would take several
tapes to do it.


[......]

puts things back to the way they were. This means that if the system was
broken on a given day, that exact situation is recorded on the back up.
An earlier back up would have the system as it was on some day before
things went wrong. This is exactly what you want back ups to act like.
They are complete pictures of the system on a given day. The restore
process lets you put things back as they were. The repair process is how
you make the system correct.

Both steps involved making crucial backup decisions. YOu have to
make these decisions when you design your backup process.

This is not correct. The more decisions you make at that time, the more
likely it is you are making an error. The purpose of a backup is to be a
complete and accurate record of how things were.

You
cannot tell when the system got infected unless it's a poorly
designed virus. YOu could have been saving the virus on each
and every backup tape. This implies that you have no clean
system backups.

This would suggest that the virus was there at install time. That is
unlikely. You are again mixing the subject of repair with that of making
a backup. A back up is a record of how things were. To repair a system
is to make it correct or at least workable again.

The repair process and restore process has to
be done at the same time. Both "steps" have to be done
with the same action and cannot be separated as you seem
to claim here.

No, I have never claimed this. You have gotten this wrong too. To
restore a system means to put it back as it was. To repair it means to
make it right. The repair needs to have the backups and the restore needs
to have the backups but they are two different things.

/BAH

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esboom$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9f0f$q95$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <es98ds$8qk_001@s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[....]
The other stuff I've spoken to elsewhere.

The case that I brought up was database; with databases, the data
is always a moving target that can never be snap-shot with accuracy.

This is not always true. In a multidisk mirroring system, you can do a
commit and unmount one drive. It will be an image of what was there at
the time the commit happened. Disks are fast enough that this option can
be used for most applications. The delay caused by the OS's commit
operation is not very long.

I know this is one strategy. One kind of implementation was called
striping. For a reservation system, this may not be the best
technique because data entry and maintenance is over a wide
geographical area; the speed of light is very slow.

You said "never". You now admit that the method I stated does exist. The
speed of light issue is only a slight delay on the commit process.

Normal OS file rules prohibit file "co-edit" sessions.

Nope. It can be done but you really have to know what you're
doing. We implemented a system calls that would help different
programs "share" files.

Note his word "normal" in the above.

I was talking about normal. Windows is not normal.

Note his word "normal". You have just suggested that yours was a special
case ie: not normal.

You can have multiple streams of
data going to a file even on a Windows machine. All that is needed is to
have one task that does the actual write operations. This is usually
combined with "event based" recording where the transactions are recorded
with time stamps so that the correct order is insured.

That's not very effiecient if your app is writing a lot. There
will be a bottleneck at the timekeeper's point in the execution.

What do you mean by "timekeeper". I have to ask because there is no such
problem in any part I can think of as the "timekeeper".

Contention also needs handling because two events could have
the same time stamp.

Contention is only an issue if you have multiprocessing and events that
can't be commuted.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esbpio$8qk_004@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9djf$q95$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
You are in error. Last access is an important datum.

Please explain exactly how you thing the last access is important.

[This is the piece I inadventently deleted]

What
do you do with this information?

I, the BACKUP programmer, will save all files during an incremental
that has an access date after the date-time argument of the /SINCE
switch.

This makes it no longer an "incremental". You are in fact doing a partial
save on the system. The mere fact that you do something that is not an
incremental and call that an incremental, doesn't make you right about any
of the things you've posted on the subject. A far better way to do a
backup is still to make an image of the drive.

In this context, the only use of that
information will be a mistake.

Are you interested enough to read some code which implements
this stuff correctly?

Yes, do you know of any?

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Tony Lance]

Big Bertha Thing pathos
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/pathos.html
Access page JPG 12K Image
Astrophysics net ring access site
Newsgroup Reviews including uk.rec.cycling

Detail from painting of captive musketeers.

Caption:-
Porthos took hold of a bar (foot rail) with both hands

From the book
Twenty Years After
by Alexandre Dumas
Published by George G.Harrup & Co.Ltd., 1923
Reprinted 1929
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1998
Distribute complete and free of charge to comply.


Big Bertha Thing poem

Some Days, Then Some

by Tony Lance

I've had better days, he thought and said.
When I could get my sorry butt out of bed.
When I wasn't mistook for as good as dead.
When they didn't fill my boots with all that lead.

There are days sometimes, of sunshine on my head.
Windswept shores viewed from along a beachy-head.
Carefree larks, in a clearly blue sky, over-head.
Then of course, I became a headmaster, the old man said.

Tony Lance
judemarie@bigberthathing.co.uk


Sunday, November 16, 1997 05:19:05 PM
Message
From: Tony Lance
Subject: Re(2): Fwd: Big Bertha Thing 5
To: FC Mods Discussion
First Big Bertha posting was to first aid tent in CP Conf. to provide aid and comfort to
victims who had been set upon by unnamed thugs. There was no way to make direct contact,
with shell shocked victims. The trick worked and first victim is well again.
Since then she has developed a life of her own and actually caught some thugs in the act.
Children will be children. The full set of Big Bertha can be found on CP Conf.
Thank you,
Tony Lance

 

[Phil Carmody]

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

In article <esbpio$8qk_004@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es9djf$q95$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
You are in error. Last access is an important datum.

Please explain exactly how you thing the last access is important.

[This is the piece I inadventently deleted]

What
do you do with this information?

I, the BACKUP programmer, will save all files during an incremental
that has an access date after the date-time argument of the /SINCE
switch.

This makes it no longer an "incremental".

I missed that sentence before. BAH's principle seems to be:
"Oh no - someone's looked at my holiday photos on my webserver
since I last did a backup - I'd better back them up again."
How stupid is that? There is no-one in the real world who uses
the ill-formed logic that BAH seems to have come up with. I'm
amazed that she's still capable of surprising me at how stupid
she is. A palooka of the worst sort.

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 <esbqel$8qk_010@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9g7v$q95$8@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
This is part of the "complex issues" skipped to keep the list short.

Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the
swap file?

If you think otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about. This
is what "swapping" in a VM system implies.

It didn't in any VM system JMF implemented.

Then JMF was not implementing VM as the term is commonly used in the
industry. He obvious implemented something that he called VM.

I'm unaware of
any other OS that used the term in that wasy.

In which way? Do you mean correctly as those of us in this argument have
been or do you mean is some special JMF way.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <esc02o$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <es9g64$q95$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.... intel ....]
I still can't find it. I searched the PDF version of the report for word
"division" and nothing like that came up. Do you have a page number?

You have to read the whole report and then compare the different
product areas.

I have read the damn thing. Now tell me where these number are.

You'll have to wait for this answer. Last year's had separate
sections discussing the PC biz and the embedded controller biz.
The embedded piece took in a lot more money but I don't recall
the percentage. I do recall it was significant.

I think you are misrembering it.

[.....]

Not for data bases such as SABRE. Airline reservation systems
don't care about data that is already in the past.

That is completely wrong. If I make a reservation right now:
..... time passes .....
and now I go to the airport, they'd better still remember that I made it.

So now what did you really mean.

Now consider the scenario:

Ok but you have to go back and say that you were wrong when you stated
"Airline reservation systems ...."

You make a reservation.
Time passes....
System gets corrupted causing a rebuild of the system from
a snapshot made just before your reservation was made.
Time passes....
You go to the airport and find that somebody has your seat.

Someone forgot to replay the transactions. This is obviously Jet Blue you
are talking about.

It's too
complicated to go into detail.

Obviously the above isn't.

Your scenario assumes no errors nor corrections.

No it doesn't.

Your scenario
assumes that somebody will notice if your reservation disappears.
Not it doesn't.

Using your backup approach will never notice.

Also untrue.

Again, if you do a bit by bit type of backup, you also save the
bad spots of the disk.

Yes, exactly. When will you stop pretending that it is a new idea? This
is exactly what you want a back up to do.

Not a backup. You don't want a backup to save the junk.

Oh, yes I do. A backup is a record of exactly how things were.

You want
a clean save so you don't have to deal with errors you've already
eliminated.

No, you want an exact image.

You don't want a back up
program to pretend it knows what is not important enough to save.

You want the backup program to be versatile enough so that the
person issuing the commands to the program can have the choices
of what and how a backup should be done.

Absoulutely not. People are always morons. You never trust them to
decide what should be saved. They will always save the wrong stuff and
then whine about it later.

You
want a complete record.

Not always.

Always.

[....]

Now we are getting to the subject of repair. This is a more complex
subject than just making backups. This is why I suggested that the data
be on a different disk. This means you know most of what needs to be
copied right away. For programs you may be in for a lot of work. On the
Windows OS, the installed programs step all over each other. If you have
been a good person, you will still have the install disks and know which
order they got installed to make a running system.

Look, either you're doing a file backup or you're doing a 100% bit-to-bit
copy of the disk. Your last paragraph has just switched to the
file backup.

You seem still not to understand that a 100% bit for bit copy is a backup.
It is the best backup to do all others are incomplete.

[....]

It can be many things. The OS has a bug; the network has a bug;
your apps created an environment that causes the glitch in cooperation
with timing, the phase of the moon, and other events.

You mean a bug, a bug, a bug and perhaps a hardware problem.

Or a software aspect that breaks the hardware.

Like I said: a bug, a bug, a bug and perhaps a hardware problem. Hardware
does certain things when told to do so by software. If the software told
it to do something the documentation said it should not be asked to do
then this is a bug, if the hardware did not do what the documentation
said it would this is a hardware problem.


[....]

Now you are just being silly. You haven't been able to say how it is more
complex because it isn't it is the speed that has increased.

If rates of events increase, you have enormous complexity.

Nope.

An analogy
is automobile traffic.

Bad analogy. A better analogy is a giant squid.

If the road capacity is filled 100%, getting from
here to there becomes extremely complex. If the road has no traffic
on it, the trip isn't difficult at all.

The driving analogy is a bad one and leads to wrong conclusions.

A better one is that when a giant squid swims faster, it doesn't grow any
extra eyes.


[....]

You think you see that. Now what is it that is really happening? You saw
a light blink on your modem, I assume.

Yes. and I didn't request downloads. So if stuff is happening without
my permission, I throw the power switch.

The light blinked without your permission. Beyond that point you are just
assuming.

[....]

I am talking about the application I referred to in another post.
It was called SABRE. It was probably the first computer aided
transaction processing system.

What was the date? There was one that I know of in 1972.

I think it was around that time. Watching that application
and how it evolved would be intersting.

I believe that it is where much of what the banks use today got its start.
At that time it was all going down dedicated phone lines.

Like I thought you have none at all. The reason I asked you to name two
was because I thought I detected the usual blowing smoke trick where you
imply that you have already proven something at some earlier point in the
thread.

I've been discussion three problems, specifially. Anybody who
understood those could think of scenarios in the thousands.

1. A snapshot of data is useless in restoring a system; example SABRE.

No, you are wrong in this.

2. The backup used to restore the system contains the cause of
the system's original demise.

This is exactly what a backup should contain if that is what was on the
disk.

3. A file disappears with no detection until long after the backup
tapes have been written over.

You are wrong in this too.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[krw]

In article <escck2$hcr$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...

In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
[....]
I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive
and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the
"controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can
be understood.

If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling
controllers.

Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied.

Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use
this as an indication of the drives health.

Why do you need the data off the defective sector? All you need to
know is that there are defective sectors (and perhaps some other
interesting statistics; density, etc.).

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.20536be861bedd6a98a048@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <esbpq1$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
[....]
I'm assuming that this housekeeping moved into the smart
controllers.

The disk drive itself.

Watch out. Some people call the spinning mechanical bits the disk drive
and all the electronics including that which is on the assembly the
"controller". The boundary has moved enough that this point of view can
be understood.

[.....]

Any bad sectors are mapped out so they don't get copied.

Ideally, you'd like to have copies of what they have too. You can use
this as an indication of the drives health.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:41:22 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:26:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


That's the whole point, dimmie! It doesn't *have* to be a legal
document. That's the whole pint, dimmie!



Yes it *does*, you fucking retard. That is the ONLY point.

I met a fellow who was able to put his entire resume on
the back side of a business card.

Having met you, virtually, I now know two.

Every post you make proves that you are even more retarded than any
of us realized.

You know NOTHING about me, and that proves how retarded you are to
even think that you do.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:41:22 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:


MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:26:33 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



That's the whole point, dimmie! It doesn't *have* to be a legal
document. That's the whole pint, dimmie!



Yes it *does*, you fucking retard. That is the ONLY point.

I met a fellow who was able to put his entire resume on
the back side of a business card.

Having met you, virtually, I now know two.



Every post you make proves that you are even more retarded than any
of us realized.

You know NOTHING about me, and that proves how retarded you are to
even think that you do.

Through your words you reveal yourself for all to understand.