from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAD444105
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:56:27 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:56:27 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 18BC52940C3; Fri,  9 Aug 2002 16:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
from venus.phpwebhosting.com (venus.phpwebhosting.com
    [64.29.16.27]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 472132940AB for
    <fork@xent.com>; Fri,  9 Aug 2002 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
from unknown (HELO hydrogen.leitl.org) (217.80.40.22) by
    venus.phpwebhosting.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 23:15:35 -0000
from localhost (eugen@localhost) by hydrogen.leitl.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g79NFTF03914; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:15:29
    +0200
From fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Aug 12 11:08:43 2002

On 9 Aug 2002, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> This only restates the assertion, it doesn't clarify /how/ government
> restrains you, other than under laws of criminal conduct and violent
> crimes (if you meant the above literally)
Of course. What we need is an anonymous betting pool on prominent
spammer's time of demise. Unfortunately, the government tends to take a
dim view of this, for some unfathomable reason.
> If I can trace a spammer to their ISP, I can /generally/ get that
> account revoked, and if you trace one to their parent corporation, I
Uh, account revokation doesn't have quite the same level of deterrence as
cranial indentation with a heavy, blunt object. Honestly, how many people
will still spam if they knew they'd be running a real risk of losing life
and limb?
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> It's efficient-end, not low end.  At 1Million hour MTBF, 133MB/sec,
> and pretty good buffering and speed, the only thing going for SCSI is
> 15,000 RPM vs. 7200 and in a very small number of cases, slightly
> better scatter-gather.  (Actually, I think there might be a 15,000 RPM
> IDE now.)
It's not just krpm, the desktop HDs have a higher failure rate. But I
agree, EIDE has high density, and EIDE hardware RAID can offer SCSI a
sound beating for reliability, performance, and storage density/rack units
for the money, if designed for it, and if people would actually start
buying it.
> The other issues are pretty much non-issues: using multiple drives and
> controller contention (just use many IDE channels with extra PCI
> cards, up to 10 in some systems), and long cable runs (just split
There are not all that many hard drives inside an 1U enclosure. Airflow
blockage (you have to fit in 2-3x the number of SCSI disks with EIDE) will
soon be a thing of the past due to SATA.
> storage between nodes).  Dual-port SCSI is also a non-issue since it
> is very expensive, doesn't work that well in practice because there
> are numerous secondary failure modes for shared disk systems, and
> because you still end up with a single point of failure.
Since rack-space costs dominate, and our systems need more or less decent
I/O we're going with 1U Dells with SCSI. The hard drive prices don't
really make a visible difference, given the cost of the iron, and the
rackspace/month. Plus, 1U Dells don't have any space left for lots of EIDE
drives.