|
Quote: No, darling - you don't need to hold the lid shut, you couldn't open it if you tried!
Good luck with that. I wouldn't try it myself.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: So I just ran the numbers: the lid is about 10" wide by 15" long, so that's 10 * 15 * 14.7 pounds of air holding the lid shut since there is as-near-as-damnit no air on the inside (-0.1MPa on the gauge). That's about 1000Kg Going from heathen to metric.
Impressive.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Inches and miles are a "natural measurement" for me - I can estimate cm up to 10 or so, but above that I revert to inches. I know how long it would take me to walk or drive 3.5 miles, but 5.5Km is not something I have a "feel for". But I measure wood in mm, ingredients in g, droplets in picolitres, and "medium distances" in m.
Go figure.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: But I measure ... politicians in 'idiocies'?
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: politicians in 'idiocies' corruptions?
FTFY
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
My mind is metric. I would never cross beams!
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Inches and miles are a "natural measurement" for me
I've always assumed I'm built wrong. My foot isn't a foot long, and my thumb isn't an inch wide, so for any measurement that needs any sort of accuracy, there's nothing "natural" to me about the imperial system.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Inches and miles are a "natural measurement" for me Bill Bryson:
'Of course they make sense,' the British person will sniff. 'Half a firkin is a jug, half a jug is a tot, half a tot is a titter, half a titter is a c**k-droplet. What's not logical about that?'
(Side remark: I have seek acres (i.e. fields) far bigger than an acre. I have lifted stones far heavier than a stone. I have seen furs significant longer than a furlong. Recommendation for baroque affectionados: Twas within a furlong[^] - I guess the furlong referenced is somewhat longer than the standard measure. l'Arpeggiata at its best!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do any of you have a file server in your home LAN?
If so, is it worth it?
Opinions, recommendations, etc would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a NAS configured to RAID 5 (well, two NASes) which is accessible to all devices - so my desktop, Surface, Phone, Herself's Tablets, the Surface in the kitchen, and Chromecast can all access the same files.
Is that worth it? For me, yes. It's not a "cheap solution" but RAID5 means I can survive a HDD failure without any data loss (which I have done) and being able to access important / useful documents from anywhere in the house is very handy. Just for the "kitchen surface" alone: I can add recipes on my desktop with a proper keyboard and update the NAS, then the Surface can pick them up and display them while I'm cooking. And so on.
For me, a NAS is a better solution than a file server: smaller, quieter, lower power consumption, and more reliable as well as easier to maintain.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Much appreciated.
Brand and capacity, please?
This is all new to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Seagate Blackarmor 4 bay, 16TB giving a storage space of 11.9TB in RAID 5 (you always lose some space with raid as it stores additional info for recovery when a HDD goes dead).
I've had this one for 7 or 8 years and it's been no trouble at all (the HDD failure was on the previous 4TB NAS which was too full and too slow). Read speeds average around 85MByte/sec; Write is understandably slower at around 35MByte/sec. Sorry, I can't remember how much I paid!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a file server but it sits there unused, now.
I too have a NAS. Like Griff's, it is a 4 bay 16TB Raid5 unit. It is a Raid+ with 4 4TB SSD drives. The usable is about the same as his.
I too have had it for several years and don't remember the price. The NAS came without drives, and I bought the aforementioned Western Digital SSD drives.
I am extremely pleased with it, and think you would be better going that route.
ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: then the Surface can pick them up and display them while I'm cooking Most restaurants here don't have that luxury. I imagine your kitchen to sport USB sockets
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, it picks up via WiFi.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Have you measured the real sustained transfer rate from the application to the network?
And the average and variation in access time? The time it takes to create ten thousand tiny files? How does it compare to an M.2 disk?
Obviously you won't have an M.2 disk of ten terabytes; I am not proposing that as viable alternative I ask the questions just to make people aware of the cost (in time) of the solutions that are capable of handling tens of terabytes of data. You can't just scale up linearly with the data volume / file count the expected time to complete, from your M.2 disk!
|
|
|
|
|
There's a 1 Gb (don't laugh at the size) drive; an old fashioned external drive, connected to the router. It's available on the LAN as a network drive.
It's nice to have shared space between PC's.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
I'm looking for +10TB, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheap and ideal, since the router doesn't get turned of. Ever.
..but +10Tb is not going to work over USB. My router has USB2, but even USB3 would feel slow. If you can afford it, go OG and RAID5.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Not getting it. Why should a storage capacity of +10 TB not work over USB? The access time of large-capacity disks is not significantly longer than that of medium or small capacity disks.
Obviously, if you are going to fill up (or back up) 10 TB in one go, the sheer volume will make it take time, regardless of interface technology. With the 22 years old USB2 and its 53 Mbyte/sec max transfer rate, it will take even more time. The 4,5 years old USB 3.2 can reach 2400 Mbyte/sec transfer rate is not likely to be the bottleneck - the rotating disk is not delivering data that fast to the interface anyway.
20+ years ago, when people defragmented their disks twice a week and twiddled around with interleave factors (that was on FAT disks!), I had several friends who seriously believed the claims that they could significantly speed up their computer by deleting unused files, even if they had plenty of free disk space. A couple of them insisted that it was indeed noticeable at the user level. I tried to make them explain why it would make a speed difference if a disk block is in a never accessed file, so it lies untouched on the disk, or lied untouched on the disk because it wasn't allocated to any file. Even if my friends could not provide any explanation (they were not computer professionals), they trusted the claims in the computer magazines more than they trusted me ...
I see "+10 TB disks are slow" as a variation on the same theme. There is no technical reason why a large disk would be significantly slower. The rotational speed is the same, the arm moves equally fast, and the maximum arm movement is limited by the disk size but unaffected by coding density and track density.
Both for the FAT disks 20 years ago and modern disks, you may bring up some extremely marginal points that might, under special circumstances, possibly have a measurable effect on the speed, but never so that the user would notice. E.g. in an almost empty disk, the search for a free block (when managed by a bit map) would succeed faster than if the entire bit map must be searched to find the very last free block. Such operations make up just a tiny little speck of the application run time that it can't possibly be noticed by the user. The placebo effect can be quite strong, though (and I do know that there exists placebo so strong that it works even if you don't believe in it ).
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Not getting it. Why should a storage capacity of +10 TB not work over USB? Dunno. Explain me why Heroes of the Storm lags when I run it from there?
Router and external spinning HD are from the same era as USB2.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|