Tech myth debunk thread

[Drak3]

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.

 

[amdorintel]

I remember my networking teacher in college, we went to one of his companies in the downtown core that he was a consultant for. just because he worked for them doesn't mean he is right, just means he got hired over someone else. also salary doesnt matter either in knowledge base. because the other fella across the street may do things differently, and both are trillion dollar companies. i think its a matter of how much one system costs over the other, is one more labor intensive and what ever other factors, now those could be calculated and adhered to or something just randomly picked by some "expert"  can view it like a court case, defence can get an expert recognized in the field to say the sky is red, while the prosecutions expert can say the sky is brown. both are experts, both get paid $1M/yr and both have phd's in sky color. its just going back to my previous post, where i had to laugh. but reading up on tape technology, LTO-8 is quite amazing, tape tech is relevant today I learned, its pretty amazing how much data it can hold, and how it can be compressed.

 

https://www.overlandstorage.com/blog/?p=323&p=323

Spoiler

With the amount of data being stored continuing to grow exponentially, tape offers some inherent advantages over disk-based technologies for long-term data storage, including:

1. High capacity: LTO tape cartridges can now store up to 6.25TB on a single tape.  With Overland Storage’s NEO library, companies can now store over 6PB in less than 14 sq. ft. of data center floor space.
2. Fast performance:  Data can now be retrieved in a matter of seconds or just a few minutes with the ability to move data at speeds of over 1TB/hr. per tape drive.
3. Lower cost per GB: At an average cost of $.01/GB, tape storage is the most affordable option for storing massive amounts of data.
4. Reduced energy costs: Studies repeatedly show that tape drives use less power and generate less heat than disk drives, resulting in energy costs that are 1/15th that of disk.
5. Portability:  Tape is still the only medium on which you can reliably store data and move it offsite for disaster recovery purposes
6. Greater reliability:  The error rate of tape technology is superior to that of disk; in addition, tape is immune to some of the pitfalls that disk is subject to (e.g., viruses), providing more reliable access to all of the data companies are storing long-term.
7. Better longevity:  The physics of tape technology enable companies to extend its storage capacities far beyond what the physics of disk technologies will allow – making tape an ongoing data storage solution for the long haul.
8. Scalability:  Not only do individual tapes gives users the ability to scale their storage capacity due to high capacities and backward read compatibility, but also tape libraries like Overland’s NEO Series allow users’ data storage solutions to scale with their demands and not be outstripped by them.  Tape allows you to grow into – not out of – your data storage requirements.
9. Compatibility:  The combination of tape’s superior backward read compatibility and the fact that all major ISV applications (such as BackupExec, NetBackup, ARCserve, etc.) provide widespread support of tape-based storage results in the best possible return on investment.
10. Good Enough For Google, Good Enough For You – In 2011, Google made headlines when it had to use tape to restore the email boxes of 40,000 users. With performance increasing significantly and storage capacities growing, companies will continue to rely on tape for offsite backup and disaster recovery.

 

 

i was going to go to wikipedia on raid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

Quote

RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks^[1] or Drives, or Redundant Array of Independent Disks) is a data storage virtualization technology that combines multiple physical disk drive components into one or more logical units for the purposes of data redundancy, performance improvement, or both.

 

[Kisai]

33 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

ouch that is taking a long long leep my friend.

 

tape is like so old, so so old

https://www.quantum.com/tape

 

Still new.

https://iq.quantum.com/exLink.asp?6420535OR59W85I38315920&DS00383A&view=1

12TB tapes.

 

Also, stupidly expensive IMO. It's a pity that there's no real alternative to tape, though flash media might actually get there for short-term backups (eg 1-5 years.) You'd want to re-copy the drives every 5 years just to ensure they still have a retention charge, and then you only want to do that by copying old drives to new ones. So going back to the idea as RAID as backup, As a "mechanism" for creating a backup, in theory you could if you keep cycling out drives, but you'd have to cycle out the entire array, so you would waste lots of time, energy and money trying to find "that thing" and it wouldn't be forensically viable either since merely trying to access the drive would change the data on it.

 

So in an ideal situation, what you want is to be able to "snapshot" a drive by having a paired drive that is constantly in sync, and then, let's say at the end of the week, you rotate that paired drive with another and let the system "rebuild" the array. Better hope you don't accidentally put the wrong drive in and rebuild the array using the old drive's data instead of the current drive. In practice however, it's extremely doubtful anyone ever managed to recover a system using only one drive in a two drive (RAID 1) system, what instead happens is that the system boots up in a degraded mode, and shortly thereafter the second drive fails and everything is lost. Hence, you need more than one drive if you're trying to use it as a "backup" mechanic. You might be able to recover if you bought the same model of drive but from different retailers so that you didn't get the same production date.

 

My roommate, I did recover her two-drive system (it was a RAID system as well) because she was smart and didn't continue to use the machine when it said the drive array was crashed. Just purchased a new drive. Is that a Backup you say? Only if you're lucky and at the machine when it happens. Most people, will ignore boot-up warnings because people have been trained to ignore idiot lights.

 

I even have a short story about the other side of this. So one of my clients, bought two backup systems. It came with specific drives just large enough to backup their two primary systems. One day BOTH backup systems went down. "But they had RAID!" you might say. Yeah, they did, and what happened is the OEM put drives from the same batches in both machines, and all 4 drives blew up within hours of each other after running for about a year. I hope I'm remembering this correctly. At any rate I had to order 4 more drives (these were 1U systems) with larger drives. And reinstall the OS, and redo the configuration on those machines from scratch since they backup data from another machine.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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

 

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

No, that is not true. If you have a true backup of your data that is kept disconnected from the computer, powered down, and stored out of sight of the computer, you most definitely can recover data lost due to system hiccups or user error (and I have done so in the past). If using the correct software that's been configured correctly to update your backups, you can even keep multiple versions of changed data

 

The purpose of redundancy is to allow a computer to keep chugging along without data loss if a drive should go belly up, which is a perfectly valid use for it. However, since it refreshes every time data is changed, data that becomes corrupted or deleted will be lost. Only an up to date backup that is kept disconnected from the computer, powered down, and stored away from the computer is capable of restoring lost data, no matter how it gets lost.

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

Except that the data is only duplicated not backed up.  There is a big difference between backed up and duplicated.  Files are not backed up if they cannot be recovered in the event of a software failure.

 

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

Point?

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

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.

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.

 

Quote

 

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

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.

 

 

Semantics again, you are trying to stretch the definition of backup to include something that does not fits it's description nor usage.     Why in the face of god knows how many links to relevant articles, nearly every definition presented (including your own) and half a dozen people telling you that a raid is not a backup,  do you insist it is?

 

 

 

 

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

32 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

...5. Portability:  Tape is still the only medium on which you can reliably store data and move it offsite for disaster recovery purposes...

Excellent article. However, the above is not quite true. Solid State storage is also very portable. However, it does not have the longevity of tape (as pointed out later). Still, it is useful for short term storage and is far less expensive to use on a smaller scale.

 

24 minutes ago, Kisai said:

It's a pity that there's no real alternative to tape, though flash media might actually get there for short-term backups (eg 1-5 years.)

Five years for SSDs is a bit of a stretch (flash media, such as USB thumb drives or camera cards, usually have even less data retention durability). Even one year might be a bit optimistic, depending on the age of the drive, how full it is, and the number of bits store per cell.

 

I refresh all my data SSD backups no less than once a month, even if no data has been added or changed. While that's rather paranoid, I swap out my offsite backup drives with my onsite backup drives also no less than once a month to keep the offsite backup drives as up to date as possible so it's a convenient time to refresh them when updating the ones that have had changes. Refreshing is as simple as connecting the backup drive to the computer and reading it (I use my data backup program, FreeFileSync, to compare the computer data drive to its backup drive to ensure the drive gets read; it also can catch any "bit rot", which hasn't been a problem for me yet). I can easily do all ten 4TB backup SSDs while watching the evening news.

[Drak3]

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.

[Kisai]

3 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

 

Five years for SSDs is a bit of a stretch (flash media, such as USB thumb drives or camera cards, usually have even less data retention durability). Even one year might be a bit optimistic, depending on the age of the drive, how full it is, and the number of bits store per cell.

 

I was thinking incremental backups, eg one monthly backup with daily/weekly increments backup's to SSD and then when it gets to the end of the month move do a new monthly backup, and offsite the previous months backups. Then keep whatever level of redundancy you need after that. So if you need 60 SSD's to do two months, you can either reuse the drives a few times, or recycle/wipe them like with tapes. A "smart" e-waste friendly variation would be to only reuse the drives until they hit 50% of their expected TBW and then replace them. 

 

Because the office basically needs to be recoverable and not lose days of work, however way they do backups (I literately have no idea how it works at present, as they replaced two systems connected by fiber channel to the Quantum Tape drive. I know "cloud" is involved at some point) wherever these tapes are stored would have to be retrievable, locally, so I have no idea what their disaster recovery plan is. I've never seen anyone try to restore a backup.

 

At any rate Holographic storage when? Who's sitting on it?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

So, fitting the definition of backup.

 

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.

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).

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

At this point, I've decided you must be trolling (posting to deliberately stir up discord). And stop twisting my words around and taking them out of context.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

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.

 

 

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

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

 

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.

 

yep, clearly everyone else is wrong.

 

 

 

[Drak3]

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.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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.

 

Yes I have, and so have many others:

 

got back to here and start again:

 

6 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

No , I'm not.

 

RAID isn't a backup, like I said, it's redundancy.

 

RAID won't protect you form viruses, malwares or cryptolockers, etc.

RAID won't protect you form mistakes (people DO delete files by accident).

RAID won't protect you from data corruption.

 

All of the above will replicate the problem to all drives in the RAID.

 

 

I have a backup solution, the first step is to copy the files on a RAID array (the array is part of my backup system, but the drives where the data is mirrored is NOT a backup, it's a Fail-Safe in case of drive failure), the second step is to do an incrememtal cloud backup, last step is to copy only specific "life-or-death" types of files to 2 different off-site and cloud storage.

 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, amdorintel said:

tape is like so old, so so old

Tape technology is old, tape drives and tape storage devices under go generational improvements. Saying tape is old as a negative does not apply because you can say that about disks, memory and flash storage. All these technologies are extremely old yet there are new advancements with them every year.

 

We used to have thousands of LTO-5 tapes, now we have hundreds of LTO-7 tapes, which have already been superseded by LTO-8 (we will skip this generation and go LTO-9/LTO-10). A current generation LTO-8 tape can hold up to 30TB of data with a data rate between 360-900 MB/s, and if you're like us you'll have many of these tape drives so can be coping upwards of 10 GB/s, that means you need extremely fast storage arrays to actually be able to feed the data fast enough to the drives or you'll cause tape scrubbing.

 

Tape is still by far the cheapest backup storage medium as all it requires is a single drive and as many tapes as you need and time to swap tapes, or go higher end and use auto-loading tape libraries. Only thing cheaper is abusing free cloud storage, but those are extremely slow.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Also, stupidly expensive IMO. It's a pity that there's no real alternative to tape

Well who on earth buys a tape drive if your backup requirements don't even fill a single tape, going back years that used to be the only option but now for those use cases we have cloud storage. You can get an LTO-7 drive for about $2k and each tape after that is between $40-$60 so it's not expensive but rather very cheap so long as you have the data footprint to meet that minimum entry point. I know it's a technicality here because barrier of entry might seem high, and it is for home usage, but even small businesses today have a fair decent amount of data so tape is a front runner for cost for almost everyone. There's more important factors that would push these people away from tape though, operational expertise and physical location being the big ones.

 

Direct to tape backup is very rare today though, most short term backups are done to disk systems then longer term weekly/monthly copies to tape, Disk to Disk to Tape is what it's know as. You can also make multiple copies of these longer terms backups, one to cloud and one to tape.

 

Home users and business users are so different they should really be covered and considered separately, I mean for home a simple external HDD and a free backup tool is right up there in the best of class methods only really being beaten out by cloud backups. Over engineering solutions is a big problem, but so is under engineering them.

[Bombastinator]

The point about tape made was not that it was useless but that it was old, implying uselessness.  That it is old is true.  That it is no longer useful in many situations is true.  That it is not useful in ALL situations is not true. It’s become a niche thing, and it’s niche is becoming smaller and smaller.

 

Once it was everywhere but that time is gone.
 

[Helly]

Let's analyze what RAID is and what a backup is.

 

RAID = Redundant Array of Independent disks. Nothing in there says backup. Redundancy immediately affects everything connected to it (a file deletion is immediately done on all drives), so undoing this either takes a lot of time or is impossible due to the data being overwritten.

Now as for the definition of RAID being a backup, sure, its a hardware backup. Physical backup of the device storing your data. It prevents immediate data loss due to a drive failure. But is it really? In RAID levels like 1, 5, 6 and 7 (and different level's involving those) the drives are online and spinning and all contain data. They are all needed for the array to be available and normal (not degraded). A physical backup device would be a cold (spare)drive not spinning and not already in the array. So the array itself is NOT a backup and none of the drives in it are either. As all drives in it are used. Hot spares don't count same as cold spares, they are not part of the array and are only pulled in when a drive fails.

 

A backup is simply your file(s) stored on another device that is unaffected by what you do on your local storage. At a later point your data is synced to the backup to apply the changes. It is most likely done with iterations of the file making it possible to roll back any change made to it. Even a deletion. None of this is in any way possible with a RAID array and is all done through software.

 

So in short, RAID is NOT a backup. Unless it is the backup, then its a backup

 

Just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Helly said:

Let's analyze what RAID is and what a backup is.

 

RAID = Redundant Array of Independent disks. Nothing in there says backup. Redundancy immediately affects everything connected to it (a file deletion is immediately done on all drives), so undoing this either takes a lot of time or is impossible due to the data being overwritten.

Now as for the definition of RAID being a backup, sure, its a hardware backup. Physical backup of the device storing your data. It prevents immediate data loss due to a drive failure. But is it really? In RAID levels like 1, 5, 6 and 7 (and different level's involving those) the drives are online and spinning and all contain data. They are all needed for the array to be available and normal (not degraded). A physical backup device would be a cold (spare)drive not spinning and not already in the array. So the array itself is NOT a backup and none of the drives in it are either. As all drives in it are used. Hot spares don't count same as cold spares, they are not part of the array and are only pulled in when a drive fails.

 

A backup is simply your file(s) stored on another device that is unaffected by what you do on your local storage. At a later point your data is synced to the backup to apply the changes. It is most likely done with iterations of the file making it possible to roll back any change made to it. Even a deletion. None of this is in any way possible with a RAID array and is all done through software.

 

So in short, RAID is NOT a backup. Unless it is the backup, then its a backup

 

Just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents

This is still all about the word “backup” and how it is defined.  I saw the definition “true backup” used by someone earlier.

[Drak3]

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.

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

This is still all about the word “backup” and how it is defined.  I saw the definition “true backup” used by someone earlier.

I would agree that seems to be the main issue here. Just like people arguing about scientific theories because they apply the general definition of the word "theory" to "scientific theory".

 

Seems to be what's happening here, a redundancy isn't a backup as far as people working in IT are concerned. It's only there to help with downtime, not data recovery.

[Ben17]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:57 PM, dalekphalm said:

By default the circuit is closed. When you hit the switch, you open the circuit, which causes an action.

 

 

It usually open by defualt i think because you need to short the pins with a screwdriver to turn it on

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

Seems to be what's happening here, a redundancy isn't a backup as far as people working in IT are concerned. It's only there to help with downtime, not data recovery.

I think it's still a problem that a term is used different contexts, and people going confused cat when people say that X is not Y, even though Y in a different context means X is Y.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just a random one I like to throw out, which to me at this point is approaching ad-naseum territory. The myth is basically "NVIDIA does not support asynchronous compute"

 

They do, at least since Pascal, because the requirement for asynchronous compute, as defined by AMD themselves is (emphasis added):

Quote

A basic requirement for asynchronous shading is the ability of the GPU to schedule work from multiple queues of different types across the available processing resources.

And then there's this graph showing my GTX 1080 using two different work queues (or engines, as Microsoft calls them)

Spoiler

 

 

[Ben17]

6 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Just a random one I like to throw out, which to me at this point is approaching ad-naseum territory. The myth is basically "NVIDIA does not support asynchronous compute"

 

They do, at least since Pascal, because the requirement for asynchronous compute, as defined by AMD themselves is (emphasis added):

And then there's this graph showing my GTX 1080 using two different work queues (or engines, as Microsoft calls them

 

mine has 4 or 5 engines 

[whoisjaya]

Here's one, hope noone's said it before: Better cooler = lower room temperature

It's obviously not true, because the thermal energy is going to be transferred(with the exception being a cooling system that's not only superior in its cooling capacity but also transfers to somewhere else, kind of like what LTT did some years ago) to the room either way. I know it's pretty obvious, but it's probably just a general misconception, as people think: better cooler = cooler component = less heat = colder room

Just mentioning it because I've seen/heard people say it before...

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Jonas_2909 said:

Here's one, hope noone's said it before: Better cooler = lower room temperatur

Oh yeah lol, if anything it makes the room hotter. Due to more efficiently pushing the heat out into the room. Especially noticeable with watercooling loops, they push more heat into the room from the same hardware. Better cooling doesn't magically make your hardware not push as much heat, it just moves it out of the PC faster and more efficiently.