Xploda

Yes, you can. If you were to host your website at a hosting provider that just provides you with an FTP server to copy your files, combined with a domain name of your choice, and sometimes a ready to use database server, you would usually be paying on a per-website basis. Or at least paying extra to be able to host multiple websites on different domains. In short, Apache and NGINX both have capabilities to redirect requests on different domains to different folders under which your websites are located, serving the right content for that specific domain. For example, I have a couple of low-traffic websites for some projects of mine, but I host them all on the cheapest DigitalOcean droplet you can get. If I want to host another one, it doesn't matter because I'll still be paying the $5 for just that one Droplet. Eventually I might be running into capacity issues, but that doesn't matter as I can either go for a Droplet with more resources or add another one and enable load balancing. Depends on what your requirements are and if you're planning to do that in the near future, but to me those are the main reasons to go with DO (or even another provider like Linode, as it's all pretty much the same). I'd say it's a bit more future proof because you'll have a lot more flexibility as it's a Linux VM on which you have full permissions.

I can highly recommend DigitalOcean, as I use it for a couple of websites myself. Start off with the one-click LAMP droplet, or even better, set up Apache or NGINX yourself as you've mentioned there's no need for a database or backend. To me, the main advantage is that I can host as many websites on different domains as I want, without having to pay a hosting fee per website. Also, it's just a Linux box, so you can basically install anything you need at a later stage. Gives you more control over what you're running on the machine, more permissions etc. If you need to scale later, there are also options available for load balancing within DO. Hope this helps ?.

I agree. I don't have any personal experience with OLED yet, but I might be able to report back on that in 2 or 3 years ?. QLED might have been a viable option for me if it was a lot cheaper than OLED, but unfortunately it's not. I don't think any technology is perfect though, even though some claim it to be. Especially for TVs it really seems to boil down to some trade-offs you have to make, as neither one is perfect.

Cool, wasn't aware of the 8 bit vs 10 bit difference here. Ended up going for the C8 anyway. It will be here in just a few days time, super excited! ?

Good read! I've ended up comparing against Samsung's Q9FN too, as I was reading up on some last minute OLED burn-in horror storries which of course are a non-issue for QLED. Rtings have a great article on that too: Real life OLED burn in test . From my understanding, it should be alright if you pay some attention to it. Apparently it could potentially be the worst on a red background, but I hear that this has been improved on the C8 by making the red sub-pixels slightly larger and more resilient to the issue. Compared the two when I was in the showroom, and ended up going for the C8! The QLED looked great too, but it was slightly more expensive than the C8 as well.

Thanks for the info. That's what I was thinking as well, but having all those different model names adds a lot of confusion. Saw the C8 on display today for the first time, and it's an amazing piece of kit. Haven't seen the C7 yet, but apparently they aren't too far apart and it's only a small improvement this year. Came across the B8 as well, but as I understand it's not "officially" available in my region (Benelux), so I can't find it anywhere. I'm only slightly worried about OLED's ABL issues, after reading up on that a bit. It will probably be alright, but let's see how that goes ?.

Given the fact that there are still some awesome Black Friday deals going on (even here in Europe ), I'm on the lookout for a new TV. I've pretty much decided on going for the LG OLED55C8, so I have been looking around in multiple online stores today. I have noticed that they all seem to have slight variations in their model names, for example: LG OLED55C8P, OLED55C8PLA, OLED55C8LLA. I can't seem to find any info on what's really different about them. I have checked out the product datasheet on LG's website, but that doesn't really mention those specific types either. Mind you, I have checked out shops in different countries (the Netherlands and Germany), so maybe they have different indications per region? Can anyone point me in the right direction here?

And what if the hardware breaks down? I've always heard in the past that it could make recovering the data a bit more difficult, as you would need (almost) the exact same model of card to be able to pull it off. Is that still a valid point today? That's why I personally opted for a software RAID solution, but it would be nice to know for some point in the future .

I can't recommend using storage spaces under Windows. I have tried a similar setup on 3x 4TB Seagate Barracuda, and even though it works, performance was absolutely horrible. I never got around to figuring out why, but I was getting results like 30MB/s read speeds and 10MB/s write. Maybe it was a bug which they have fixed in the meantime, but I instantly switched over to mdadm on Ubuntu, on which I am receiving the read and write performance that is to be expected from these drives. Not only that, but in my opinion, Windows gives you very little control over your array of drives from the GUI. You would probably have to dive into PowerShell for doing more advanced operations. On topic, the parity option is the equivalent of a RAID5 setup. Double parity would be the equivalent of RAID6 (minimum 5 drives). A mirror with more drives is possible, but this is called a three way mirror in storage spaces (also minimum 5 drives required). As far as choice of drive capacity, I think it is best to use the largest drives available and within your budget (that's at least what I did, 3x 4TB instead of 4x 3TB). Less but bigger drives means less power draw, but more importantly, less SATA ports in use, which means it will be easier to expand. Especially with current developments such as 4K, it wouldn't hurt to invest into better upgradability. About your performance concerns. Yes, RAID5 could take a while to rebuild, because your system has to calculate the parity. I have done this in the past, and it took approximately 10 hours to rebuild the array on a system with a Pentium G630 and 4GB of DDR3. During this time, you will be running in a degraded state, meaning that another drive failure will make you lose all of the data. If you add another drive, I think the OS would be smart enough to relocate the data as required by the changed setup. Mirror should be a bit faster, because it would just be a matter of directly copying the data. Mirroring data would use more space than the parity bits on a RAID5. If you're mostly going to read data from it, I would be leaning towards a RAID5 setup. Read speeds are excellent, write speed a little less so. In any case, I would recommend to set up something like a virtual machine for testing purposes. You can add as many virtual drives as you want (make them like 100MB each and imagine they are larger ), which allows you to test the exact behavior of each of the options. You can test the redundancy by removing or unmounting your virtual drives. That's at least how I figured out storage spaces before using it on my actual hardware. You can simulate some of the scenarios that could happen in real life.

As the others have stated, you need to include some CSS in the <head> of your HTML code. As far as I know, you can put the ".php" extension on your file, write HTML in the file and use <? include> wherever a call to your PHP script is necessary. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to do it, because I'm not that familiar with PHP development. However, whichever server side platform you use, the story for your HTML code remains the same. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, you can use some existing frameworks for this. These frameworks generally include some CSS and JavaScript (JQuery) files, and they offer you a set of custom made UI elements which require almost no effort to include in your website. They often make your pages mobile friendly without you having to do all of the heavy lifting as well. You can also add some custom CSS that overrides the CSS from the frameworks, by defining your own CSS file. I would strongly advise not to edit the CSS of the framework itself, because you will run into issues when trying to update it to a newer version. You can usually download themes for these frameworks as well (free and paid ones). A couple of frameworks I have personally used in projects of mine: Bootstrap: as far as I know, this is the most popular one. Very stable and widely adopted, lots of tutorials, forum posts and stackoverflow posts to help you out. Foundation: I have worked with Foundation once, but to me it felt a little more unfinished than Bootstrap (still good though). I've only had a short introduction to this framework, so there's not much I can say about it. Materialize: personally a huge fan of this framework. It's still a bit experimental, but it tries to mimic the "material design" which is being used by Google these days in the Android OS. It includes some pretty cool stuff such as the Google cards, date pickers, dropdowns, ... All of these frameworks have one thing in common: the documentation is very good, and includes a lot of usable examples. I'm sure you will easily find your way in them. The only thing I always find tricky, is knowing which JavaScript files to include and where to include them, but that's just a bit of trial and error imo. These are also not the only frameworks around. I'm sure you will find a lot more on Google (and possibly even forks of the above frameworks). Good luck with your project!

Only thing that comes to mind: but why?

Just installed it. It's indeed very nice!

Yes, but I wasn't talking about 4K here. At this time, my decision for 1440p was already made .

No problem . Good luck in finding the best monitor for you, I just ordered the Dell Ultrasharp U2515H. Should be here tomorrow, can't wait .

I think that it's really a different choice for everyone. I also do some coding in my spare time, and I think I will especially enjoy the additional space this monitor has to offer. I just got a Dell IPS monitor at work (FHD). First time I have ever used an IPS panel, and I really kind of got blown away by it. The thought of buying a new monitor has been playing a while, since I have bought a 980Ti about 2 months ago. This Dell monitor at work seems to have given the final push for me. I see more benefit in an IPS panel than a 144Hz TN panel, cause it all looks pretty shiny . I haven't worked with a 144Hz monitor before, and I hear it's pretty cool as well (everything is extremely smooth), but I think the benefit of the higher resolution and nicer colors really outweighs that one benefit of having a 144Hz monitor.

Yes, everyone says it's good for casual gaming, but less for the pro gamers. The latter would obviously go for lower response time 144Hz TN panels. There are apparently 2 modes: 8ms and 6ms gaming preset, but I don't know the disadvantage of the 6ms mode. EDIT: I think this monitor should be seen more as a good allround monitor for media consumption. It's apparently also pretty good for amateur content creation because of its display of colors.

That's exactly what I was afraid of, and that's also what I hear most people say about 4K. Thanks for confirming this . But of course, I still understand your choice, given the relatively small price difference in most cases. I just checked your rig here on the LTT forum, and even if that has a hard time running games, it will be impossible for my rig. At least without SLI .

I've seen a couple of reviews for this monitor, except a few details like the capacitive buttons that don't always respond, I haven't really heard any complaints about what really matters (the panel). So far it seems like the best choice to me, but maybe there are a few better ones out there for this price range after all?

I'm looking into buying a new monitor. First of all, there is the choice between 1440p and 4K. Is buying a 1440p monitor still justified in terms of the price? It just seems to me like we're not quite there yet for 4K. I have a single 980Ti, but it's far from ideal for running games on 4K I suppose? Also, will an entry level 4K panel be much worse in terms of quality, colors, ...? What about the scaling you have to do on 4K in order to make everything usable? How much of the screen real estate remains usable in comparison to 1440p? Personally, I'm leaning more towards the 1440p option, but then the question of which monitor I would buy, is still open. The Dell U2515H has caught my eye, and even though I have googled a bit for finding worthy alternatives, I couldn't come up with any. So here's the main question of this topic: are there any much better alternatives at this moment, for the same price range? This monitor costs €350 at the moment (where I live). The cheapest 4K monitors would come in at around €500.

I just got one of these Dells at work (the exact same type as you are describing), and in fact I like it so much that I'm now looking into a Dell monitor for myself as well (at home). I now have a TN panel at home, and this is the first time I have worked with an IPS panel. I'm pretty much blown away by it. The colors on the 2414h are very vibrant. Everything looks great on it. This entire response time story, I wouldn't care about it too much. I have a 7 year old Samsung SyncMaster with 5ms, and never have I felt like having a huge disadvantage in online games or in fact in any game. Especially for online gaming, there are so many other factors, where the delay on your connection is the most obvious (ping). I used to have a 1ms iiyama monitor, and I have never really felt like "woah, such a huge difference". On paper maybe, yes, but in reality you won't notice a few more ms. If you can't win, it's probably due to your skills, rather than the response time of this monitor. You have some monitors and TVs with response times of like 15-20ms. For these, I think the whole response time issue might be justified, but not when we are talking about a difference between a 1ms and 5ms monitor. As far as I know, a higher response time goes hand in hand with IPS panels, but honestly, I would rather have the advantages of an IPS panel than a lower response time TN panel. The only thing you might want to check, is the phenomenon of "ghosting", but so far, I haven't noticed that on the Dell 2414h. There's apparently also "cross-hatching" on this monitor. You can find some info on that online, but again, it's something I haven't noticed myself. Maybe this occurs mostly in other scenarios, but I only use it for office work. This guy talks about it a little in his review, but even there I can't see it. The biggest advantage in gaming, lies in a 60Hz monitor versus a 144Hz monitor for example. In that scenario, the 144Hz monitor would do better. Personally, I would be leaning more towards Dell than LG. I don't think you would regret buying the 2414h, as it seems like a pretty solid choice to me. I hope this helps you in your comparison .

With only a custom fan profile, and without changing any of the clocks and the power limit, this is occuring now as well for the first time (on Project Cars, see screenshot -> green area in perfcap reason field). It's now throttling as a result of too much power draw. Is this to be expected as well when not adjusting the power limit? It's really weird how these cards handle/balance power, voltage, temperatures, ... Screen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxGZYrO_qlnecXdmOEtQMkFIWUk/view?usp=sharing

I guess this ASIC quality should be taken with a grain of salt. I have seen a lot of cards that have a higher percentage than mine, but also a few that come close. As you have just proven, this doesn't seem to make a big difference. Does this mean that you reached these overclocks on stock voltage?

Coming out of the back it's basically cold air, and my CPU is not going over 60°C as well on stock clocks (6700K with Noctua NH-D15). Personally I don't think this is related, but thanks for the input. The only thing that's really toasty at the back of the PC, is the graphics card throwing out its hot air.

The fan layout has been left as the case is by default, 2 front intake fans and fan at the back. Should I RMA this card?

I have a Corsair Carbide Air 540, but I don't think that's really the issue, as the other components seem to run pretty cool. My last card was a non-reference card, but this time around I didn't pay that much attention to buying a reference or non-reference card. Seems like this sample isn't that great either, if we can rely upon the asic score that gpu-z gives to it.Edit: which specific card are you using?