Drak3

43 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

My comment was more on the hardware, lol. Latest Xserve went up to 2x 2.93Ghz 65nm quad cores and came out in 2009. 

Hardware wise, The Trashcan pro had server grade hardware. It takes a unique rack mount system to use them as rack mount servers, but the hardware was there.

3 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

and xserves have been out of date for uh.... a while at this point

The old OSX Server variant has been replaced by an optional software package that gives 10.8 and up versions of OSX the same utilities.

So, instead of having a different OS, where the only difference is a software package, they just give you the software package.

Xbox

Xbox 360

Xbox One

Xbox One X

Xbox 10

Someone really needs to tech Bill how to count.

/s

5 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Looks DOA to me

Not really. The typical consumer doesn't know what benchmarks or IPC is, the only metric they know about is clockspeed.

And Intel advertises their product to typical consumers, AMD doesn't. That alone guarantees that Intel's new line of CPUs are going to sell somewhat well.

13 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Didn't AMD have dual GPUs on a single board some time ago?

Yup, and they’re making custom ones for Apple now too.

Nvidia also made dual GPU cards years ago.

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

"its not much"

Sir do you have eyes? 

It’s not a huge difference. Basically the same difference between a FourTwo and a Peterbilt.

48 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I think this is also related to people seeing lower temperatures due to using a better cooler.

 

There's also the idea that say, for example, an AIO is always better than air cooling as far as cooling performance. They go run Cinebench once or maybe prime95 for 5 minutes and say the result to prove their thinking without realizing water has a much higher specific heat than metal.

IIRC, JayzTwoCents demonstrated that the whole AiO v high end air cooler debate really hinges on what ambient temperatures are like. AiO tend to outperform high end air coolers in hotter environments, even if the opposite is true in cooler environments.

Just now, Mira Yurizaki said:

Intel doesn't need to copy someone when they've done the solution before.

Nah, Intel’s just copying the brand of glue.

/s

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Yes I have, and so have many others:

 

got back to here and start again:

 

 

None of that conflicts with the statement that RAID 1 is a type of backup.

It just explains why RAID 1 isn’t a comprehensive backup.

Just now, mr moose said:

 

yep, clearly everyone else is wrong.

 

 

 

Argumentum Ad Populum.

You haven't presented a counterpoint as to why RAID 1 doesn't fit the definition of backup. You just summarized what I said: RAID 1 only covers data loss that would result from a disk failure.

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

The purpose of redundancy is to allow a computer to keep chugging along without data loss if a drive should go belly up,

So, fitting the definition of backup.

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

No, that is not true

Yes, it is. No backup is truly safe from damage in some form.

I thought you knew that, considering how concerned you are with house fires, and how you spoke down upon another member when they bought a firesafe to store an external drive.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

There is a big difference between backed up and duplicated.

No, there isn't. Some backup systems are just multiple duplicates of of the drive, sometimes not even on a separate disk (meaning partitions, which is fine for basic safe guarding against corruption).

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

But the data is lost in anything except a drive failure.  The definition of a backup is literally:

 

Quote

to make a copy of (a computer file or data) to protect against accidental loss or corruption

 

 

No raid will protect you against accidental loss or corruption and it's questionable if it will even save you from corrupted files.

 

RAID protects against loss from drive failures, meaning that still fits that definition. It is literally a copy of a drive to protect against the failure of said drive.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

ou are trying to stretch the definition of backup to include something that does not fits it's description nor usage.

No, I'm not. I'm taking a word, and using it for its actual definitions.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nearly every definition presented (including your own)

The ACTUAL definitions presented don't contradict what I said.

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

half a dozen people telling you that a raid is not a backup

Because those people haven't given a counterargument to the actual definitions. You evade or dismiss outright the definition.

And this is why I separate Mira as being one of the smartest members of the forum. From the get go, they acknowledged that they had their own concept of what a backup was, and didn't treat it as absolute. After some discussion, they acknowledged that there is a distinction to be made between types of backups, that you can have backups for hardware and backups for data, and that RAID doesn't really handle the task of data backup. Mira 'listened' to those with different viewpoints, considered them, and adjusted their own accordingly.

Whereas multiple people have been shown the actual definition, how this type of backup is used, and ignore it. As far as I'm concerned, you'd rather try to hide behind """expert""" opinion pieces and trying to frame the discussion as "semantics," than do any critical thinking.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

you are only making a specific drive failure redundant.

That would be a type of backup. You have dedicated a set of drives to being local and live backups of each other.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Any issue with files, software or user error and your data is not backed up

That's true of any backup system. NAS and versioned libraries are not failsafe either.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

acking up something literally means (by all definitions making a copy in the event of data loss, mirroring does not prevent data loss therefore it is not a back up.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup

Quote

3 : a copy of computer data (such as a file or the contents of a hard drive)

I made a backup copy of the file.

also : the act or an instance of making a backup

 

3 : to make a copy of (a computer file or data) to protect against accidental loss or corruption

Be sure to back up your work.

also : to make copies of all the files on (a device) a program that automatically backs up your hard drive

These are the two relevant definitions. A drive failure results in the practical data loss of that drive.

RAID 1 is a mirror arrangement where the purpose is that data is not lost if a drive fails. By both definitions, RAID 1 is a form of backup. A scenario specific backup.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundant

Quote

3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (such as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

And here's the most applicable definition of redundant.

Any backup exists as duplicate data to get a system running again. Different types of backups do so in different capacities. RAID 1 enables a system to be restored with little downtime in the event of a drive failure. That's what it's good for, that's what it should be used for. It's redundant, as every backup system is, by definition.

Just now, Kisai said:

So you're trying to tell people who operate RAID systems that RAID is a back up, when clearly, RAID is not a backup because the office I do work at has several RAID systems and yet has a Tape backup system because clearly whoever is responsible for IT in the mult-billion dollar corporation knows RAID is not a backup. They have a dude come in every week to rotate the backup tapes and take them to some secure facility. 

 

RAID is not a backup, and pretending it is, is going to cost such naive people a lot of time and money when they lose everything.

How about reading all of my comments? Hell, read the one before the last one I made:

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup.

I have acknowledged, time and time again, that RAID 1 is not a comprehensive backup. I've said that RAID 1 is only useful as a basic backup for drive failure and nothing more.

And I don't give a shit about the specifics of your company's backup system. It's irrelevant. It doesn't counter anything I've said. It doesn't build on the argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than a weak appeal to authority to weasel your way out.

Just now, Kisai said:

You're really digging in your heels there. OK. do this. Eject one of your RAID drives and then format the system. Tell me how that goes for you.

I don't run RAID.

Nor is that the type of system failure RAID 1 covers. It's a backup system that covers a disk failure. I've said that, multiple times.

2 hours ago, Elisis said:

It's "solder". It's quite literally a fancy name for a new TIM.

Seeing as solder is used as a thermal interface material, yes.

22 minutes ago, BigRom said:

Intel becoming the very thing they destroyed (the AMD FX-series)

 

Oh how the turntables

Except that for the vast majority of tasks, the FX lineup couldn't compete with Intel chips' performance.

Whereas Intel's 8 cores and AMD's 8 cores are pretty close to each other. And, unlike AMD, Intel has a large enough bank account that they can advertise to the masses, who don't know how to compare CPUs outside of GHz.

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

It's not a backup.

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

At best, RAID, when you have at least 5 drives, gives you redundancy in case a drive fails

These two statements contradict each other.

As I've said before:

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

 

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

So far, you and three other guys have screeched "RAID's not a backup!" with no substantive arguments. Just lame excuses and """expert""" opinions (that are no more valid than asking random people on the street).

But by actual definition, it is. If we ignore the microcosm of arrogant elitists, connotation is that RAID 1 is a type of backup. And one of the smartest members of the forum already made the distinction you're to ignorant to realize: backup does not inherently and exclusively apply to remote data backup.

Just now, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Obviously, you did not read any of the sites I linked.

Why waste my time?

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I don't think your argument works, not even semantically. 

Arguing pure semantics, RAID 1 is a local backup. Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

Arguing connotation (outside a microcosm of techies), RAID 1 is a local backup.

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

1 minute ago, wkdpaul said:

It's a redundancy.

Any form of backup is a redundancy.

2 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

If a drives fails you can quickly get back to to work. It's completely different.

Which would constitute a form of local backup.

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Then I'm seeing two distinct usage of the word "backup"

1. Protection against data loss.
2. Protection against downtime due to hardware failure.

And while #2 can technically do #1, RAID systems are typically used as the primary data store. I don't count the primary data store as part of a data back up system.

For me, I have to see what the entire setup someone is using looks like.

But I agree that RAID isn't going to protect against data loss resulting from anything other than the other disk in the RAID config failing.

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

TIL "copying" has the equivalence of "backing up"

 

Good to know.

In a sense, yes. RAID 1, as a single solution data backup, is not going to work.

But using RAID as a basic backup to reduce downtime if a disk fails does have *some* merit to it, as long as the user understands that it isn’t a comprehensive backup system.

Bad analogy time: it’s like buying a second alternator for a truck. You can leave it in its packaging and not put any strain on it, so that if your current one fails, you have a new one, but you’re fucked if it fails on the road or if you’re in a hurry. Or you can install it to work with your current one, and if one fails, the other one keeps going; but you’re also putting strain on it.

9 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I don't know about "tightly packed", as the Mac Pro looks about as big as a full ATX case and the two MPX modules take up basically half the internal volume.

It looks pretty standard IMO. The MPX modules are just passive, more up to date versions of cards like the Titan Z or 295x2, with a different power connector.

Overall, not much new is really brought to the table with this system, just the dedicated power slot.

37 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Looked it up.  TB3 is 40gb/s. Pcie4 is 16gb/s per lane so 64gb/s

 

so TB3 is 5 lanes of pcie3.0. If only it had 8 a few years ago.

TB3 only supports 4 lanes of PCIe 3.0.

That 40gbps number is the maximum bandwidth a controller can support when combining USB, DisplayPort, and PCIe signalling.

56 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That's the same bottleneck as TB3 though. 

For anything running PCIe over Thunderbolt, bandwidth would double, which would reduce the bottleneck on higher end GPUs like the 1080 and up.

3 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

8% that aren't Ponyta or Houndoom/Growlithe aren't particularly based on anything.

Yeah most, if not all, pokemon are based on something. Lockstin & Gnoggin has many videos covering them.

4 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Take those few indie dev animations, lets assume they're ridiculously fast and make a PERFECT attack animation in an hour, that's still 10,000 man hours. That's 13.69 solid months, non stop. Lets say Game Freak has a stupid large group of 400 perfect animators, all making 1 animation per hour... that's 25 hours each. Boom, simple.

Some of these animators are that fast. And many of them do freelance, so Gamefreak could EASILY commission out animations if needed.

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

Correct, but they'd also need their own animations for carryover moves. After all, Magikarp turns into Garados, and the same animations won't exactly work for both.

So it would just be counting how many moves each pokemon learns, and a bunch of indie devs have recreated Pokemon models and made better animations just by using reference points on those models. Things like tail wags can easily just be reduced to moving a few common joints on pokemon with tails.