Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
We thought it was still weeks away....
mark
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
< http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1 ;P
Tom Bishop wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
<http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1 ;P
Actually, I can wait a few weeks or so... that way, the first bug fixes will be out from RH. I am *always* happy to wait for release x.0.1 of anything, and not go with x.0....
mark
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
<
http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1 ;P
Actually, I can wait a few weeks or so... that way, the first bug fixes will be out from RH. I am *always* happy to wait for release x.0.1 of anything, and not go with x.0....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I have a new (to me) server running *buntu at the moment since I have been waiting for 7 to be released so I will roll with it at home as soon as it becomes available.
Go team Centos!! :)
On 06/10/2014 04:33 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
<http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1 ;P
Actually, I can wait a few weeks or so... that way, the first bug fixes will be out from RH. I am *always* happy to wait for release x.0.1 of anything, and not go with x.0....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I wonder if the certification for 6.x will still be viable and available?....and for how long? (sigh!) guess I now have to find a RHEL 7 certification guide!...LOL!
EGO II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * EGO-II.1 eoconnor25@gmail.com eoconnor25@gmail.com *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:49PM *To: * CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org centos@centos.org *Subject: * Re: [CentOS] Information Week: RHEL 7 released today
On 06/10/2014 04:33 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
<http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1 ;P
Actually, I can wait a few weeks or so... that way, the first bug fixes will be out from RH. I am *always* happy to wait for release x.0.1 of anything, and not go with x.0....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I wonder if the certification for 6.x will still be viable and available?....and for how long? (sigh!) guess I now have to find a RHEL 7 certification guide!...LOL!
"RHCSA is current for three (3) years from the date it was earned." http://www.redhat.com/training/certifications/recertification.html
EGO II _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Mike Hanby mhanby@uab.edu wrote:
I wonder if the certification for 6.x will still be viable and available?....and for how long? (sigh!) guess I now have to find a RHEL 7 certification guide!...LOL!
"RHCSA is current for three (3) years from the date it was earned." http://www.redhat.com/training/certifications/recertification.html
On a slightly related note, is there anything, anywhere that would show the differences in the documentation between versions? Something like one of those side-by-side color coded diff listings that you can do with source code would be ideal to flip through on a wide screen.
On 06/11/2014 07:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Mike Hanby mhanby@uab.edu wrote:
I wonder if the certification for 6.x will still be viable and available?....and for how long? (sigh!) guess I now have to find a RHEL 7 certification guide!...LOL!
"RHCSA is current for three (3) years from the date it was earned." http://www.redhat.com/training/certifications/recertification.html
On a slightly related note, is there anything, anywhere that would show the differences in the documentation between versions? Something like one of those side-by-side color coded diff listings that you can do with source code would be ideal to flip through on a wide screen.
You could save all docs like single-html and try to compare them? maybe some html compare app?
On 6/10/2014 14:25, Tom Bishop wrote:
And the "When will Centos 7 be released" questions begin in 3...2...1
It's different this time. The CentOS people have had inside access to RHEL since December last year.[1]
So, when will CentOS 7 be released? :)
Yes, I see Jim Perrin's post today[2] that it is "in the build process," but how long does that take, if nothing goes wrong, and then how long does ISO mastering and mirror seeding take? That is to say, what is the shortest possible delay? Then, how confident are those who have been doing this work that we will get through this build process without errors, based on what happened in the beta and RC stages?
Ballpark guess, that's all I'm asking. This week? This month? While the leaves are still on the trees in North America?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:28:55PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
It's different this time. The CentOS people have had inside access to RHEL since December last year.[1]
They have the same "inside access to RHEL" as everyone else; namely the RHEL 7 beta and RC releases.
John
On 6/10/2014 15:34, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:28:55PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
It's different this time. The CentOS people have had inside access to RHEL since December last year.[1]
They have the same "inside access to RHEL" as everyone else; namely the RHEL 7 beta and RC releases.
Really? http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=68721&page=1
Several CentOS core developers are now Red Hat employees, and this changes nothing?
During the ~6-month RHEL 6 to CentOS 6 effort, the reason for the delay is that Red Hat surprised everyone by changing a bunch of things. Now we have people on the inside for 6 months, but everyone's still ignorant?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:41:52PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
Several CentOS core developers are now Red Hat employees, and this changes nothing?
It has been repeatedly stated that there is an intellectual firewall in place between the CentOS project and the relevant parts within the Red Hat organization. I have seen nothing to date to doubt that statement.
During the ~6-month RHEL 6 to CentOS 6 effort, the reason for the delay is that Red Hat surprised everyone by changing a bunch of things. Now we have people on the inside for 6 months, but everyone's still ignorant?
That was part of the published reason. Another factor was the overhaul of the build system. There have also been builds of the EL7 beta and RC components for months now. I have thousands of reports from the mailing list for these and complete build logs are available at http://buildlogs.centos.org as well now.
John
On 06/10/2014 04:41 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On 6/10/2014 15:34, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:28:55PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
It's different this time. The CentOS people have had inside access to RHEL since December last year.[1]
They have the same "inside access to RHEL" as everyone else; namely the RHEL 7 beta and RC releases.
Really? http://sdt.bz/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=68721&page=1
Several CentOS core developers are now Red Hat employees, and this changes nothing?
During the ~6-month RHEL 6 to CentOS 6 effort, the reason for the delay is that Red Hat surprised everyone by changing a bunch of things. Now we have people on the inside for 6 months, but everyone's still ignorant?
No one is INSIDE ... the CentOS team works from the same place now as we always have .. our homes.
The 4 people hired by Red Hat work for a group inside of Red Hat called the Open Source and Standards group. We have no access to the RHEL build system or RHEL source code inside Red Hat.
We get the source code for the older releases from ftp.redhat.com, just like everyone else ... we get the source code for RHEL 7 from git.centos.org just like everyone else.
We just brought into the CentOS team members of CERN Linux team (they volunteered from the community .. they do not work for Red Hat) to help us with the community buildsystem:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010517.html
Red Hat brought in the CentOS team because Red Hat wanted to have a community platform for their community projects like oVirt, OpenShift Origin, Gluster, Ceph, RDO, etc. They also brought us in to do community related Special Interest Groups. FAQ is here:
http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/
I wish we had special access and special knowledge ... but its just not true.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
"direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory" sounds intresting? via samba 4? or via other implementation?
Eero
2014-06-10 23:22 GMT+03:00 m.roth@5-cent.us:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
< http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Eero Volotinen wrote:
"direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory" sounds intresting? via samba 4? or via other implementation?
Well, since that has LDAP... We use it here, via kerboros,
mark
Eero
2014-06-10 23:22 GMT+03:00 m.roth@5-cent.us:
Excerpt: Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system. --- end excerpt ---
< http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/red-hat-ent...
We thought it was still weeks away....
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Am 10.06.2014 um 22:28 schrieb Eero Volotinen eero.volotinen@iki.fi:
"direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory" sounds intresting? via samba 4? or via other implementation?
Eero
It comes with IPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Main_Page RHEL7 comes with a pretty recent version, from what I could see in the RC.
It’s basically AD rebuilt with Open Source tools. It’s an impressive undertaking.
Too bad all our RHEL subscriptions at work seem to have run out…. So I actually have to wait for CentOS ;-)
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system.
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops? I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
Does XFS have the same problems that LVM has if there are disk faults?
Timothy Murphy wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system.
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops? I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
That's monstrous. No, what I've read is that you want to use it when you need to go over 16TB. I've seen a lot of comments, and I think one or two in code that I googled, for ext4 that says "really need to fix this to handle > 16TB"... and I start seeing it around '09 or '10, and it's generally documented, I believe, that this is still the case. (And you *don't* want to do an fsck on a multi-TB filesystem that people need to use that day, or the next....)
Does XFS have the same problems that LVM has if there are disk faults?
No data.
mark
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Red Hat released the 7.0 version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux today, with embedded support for Docker containers and support for direct use of Microsoft's Active Directory. The update uses XFS as its new file system.
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops? I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
It is generally better at handling a lot of files - faster creation/deletion when there are a large number in the same directory. The only down side for a long time has been on 32bit machines where the RH default 4k kernel stacks were too small.
Does XFS have the same problems that LVM has if there are disk faults?
You can't really expect any file system to work if the disk underneath is bad. Raid is your friend there.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops? I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
It is generally better at handling a lot of files - faster creation/deletion when there are a large number in the same directory.
I'm wondering if, for the home user, BackupPC would be a good test of that? Otherwise I can't think of a case where I would have a very large number of files in the same directory.
The only down side for a long time has been on 32bit machines where the RH default 4k kernel stacks were too small.
Do you mean that that is a down side of XFS, or ext4?
Does XFS have the same problems that LVM has if there are disk faults?
You can't really expect any file system to work if the disk underneath is bad. Raid is your friend there.
In my meagre experience, when a disk shows signs of going bad I have been able to copy most of ext3/ext4 disks before compete failure, while LVM disks have been beyond (my) rescue. Actually, this was in the time of SCSI disks, which seemed quite good at giving advance warning of failure.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops? I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
It is generally better at handling a lot of files - faster creation/deletion when there are a large number in the same directory.
I'm wondering if, for the home user, BackupPC would be a good test of that? Otherwise I can't think of a case where I would have a very large number of files in the same directory.
There are users on the backuppc list that recommend XFS - but for 'home' size systems it probably doesn't matter that much.
The only down side for a long time has been on 32bit machines where the RH default 4k kernel stacks were too small.
Do you mean that that is a down side of XFS, or ext4?
XFS - it needs more working space.. RedHat's choice to configure the kernel for 4k stacks on 32bit systems is probably the reason XFS wasn't the default filesystem in earlier versions. And now that I think of it, this may be an issue again if CentOS revives 32bit support.
Does XFS have the same problems that LVM has if there are disk faults?
You can't really expect any file system to work if the disk underneath is bad. Raid is your friend there.
In my meagre experience, when a disk shows signs of going bad I have been able to copy most of ext3/ext4 disks before compete failure, while LVM disks have been beyond (my) rescue. Actually, this was in the time of SCSI disks, which seemed quite good at giving advance warning of failure.
I'm not sure what controls the number of soft retries before giving up at the hardware layer. My only experience is that with RAID1 pairs a mirror drive seems to get kicked out at the first hint of an error but the last remaining drive will try much harder before giving up.
On 6/11/2014 07:11, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Does XFS have any advantages over ext4 for normal users, eg with laptops?
If you graph machine size -- in whatever dimension you like -- vs number deployed, I think you'd find all laptops over on the left side of the CentOS deployment curve. I'd expect that curve to be a skewed bell, with a long tail of huge servers over on the right side.
ext* came up from the consumer world at the same time that XFS was coming down from the Big Iron world. The gap between them has thus been shrinking, so that as implemented in EL7, ext4 has an awful lot of overlap with XFS in terms of features and capabilities.
XFS still offers a lot more upside, and is more appropriate for the server systems that CentOS will most often be used on. It is a more sensible default, being the right answer for the biggest subset of the CentOS user base.
Since you're over there on the left side of the curve, you may well decide that ext4 still makes more sense for you.
That said, there really isn't anything about laptop use that argues *against* using XFS. It isn't a perfect filesystem, but then, neither is ext4.
I've only seen it touted for machines with enormous disks, 200TB plus.
ext4 in EL7 only goes to 50 TiB, whereas XFS is effectively unlimited[*]. Red Hat will only support up to 500 TiB with XFS in EL7, but I suspect it isn't due to any XFS implementation limit, but just a more professional way for them to say "Don't be silly."
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes, which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available today. You'd need 13 standard shipping containers (1 TEU) to transport them all, without any space for packing material. If we add 20% more disks for a reasonable level of redundancy and put them in 24-disk 4U chassis and mount those chassis in full-size racks, we need about half a soccer field of floor space -- something like ~4000 m^2 -- after accounting for walking space, network switches, redundant power, and whatnot to run it all. It's so many HDDs that you'd need four or five full-time employees in 3 shifts to respond to drive failures fast enough to keep an 8 EiB array from falling over due to insufficient redundancy. You simply wouldn't make a single XFS filesystem that big today, so QED: effectively unlimited.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes,
Isn't there some ratio of RAM to filesystem size (or maybe number of files or inodes) that you need to make it through an fsck?
This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes, which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available today. You'd need 13 standard shipping containers (1 TEU) to transport them all, without any space for packing material. If we add 20% more disks for a reasonable level of redundancy and put them in 24-disk 4U chassis and mount those chassis in full-size racks, we need about half a soccer field of floor space -- something like ~4000 m^2 -- after accounting for walking space, network switches, redundant power, and whatnot to run it all. It's so many HDDs that you'd need four or five full-time employees in 3 shifts to respond to drive failures fast enough to keep an 8 EiB array from falling over due to insufficient redundancy. You simply wouldn't make a single XFS filesystem that big today, so QED: effectively unlimited. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes, which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available today. You'd need 13 standard shipping containers (1 TEU) to transport them all, without any space for packing material. If we add 20% more disks for a reasonable level of redundancy and put them in 24-disk 4U chassis and mount those chassis in full-size racks, we need about half a soccer field of floor space -- something like ~4000 m^2 -- after accounting for walking space, network switches, redundant power, and whatnot to run it all. It's so many HDDs that you'd need four or five full-time employees in 3 shifts to respond to drive failures fast enough to keep an 8 EiB array from falling over due to insufficient redundancy. You simply wouldn't make a single XFS filesystem that big today, so QED: effectively unlimited.
On 6/12/2014 12:54, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
Thank you, thank you.
Now go read some "What if?" to see how a true master plays this game.
Oh yeah.. He does great work. I'm looking forward to his book that comes out.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
On 6/12/2014 12:54, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Jeremy Hoel wrote:
This little bit here is awesome and made me laugh. Thanks!
Agreed. Warren wins the Internet today.
Thank you, thank you.
Now go read some "What if?" to see how a true master plays this game.
[*] https://what-if.xkcd.com/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes, which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available today.
I’ve been wondering what 500 TB looks like, so I worked it out. It requires a mere 100 x 6 TB disks for 20% redundancy.
Viewed that way, 500 TB looks a little on the low side. You can get a 9U server chassis[*] with its face almost covered with 50 hot-swap 3.5 inch drive trays. That puts us only one size doubling from being able to achieve a max-size array in a single server.
Even if we assume SAS drives, we’re still only about 3 doublings away from filling that 9U chassis with a 500 TB array. RHEL7 will be in production 1 level support for another 5 years, enough time for those 3 doublings.
I assume we’re climbing out of the doubling doldrums brought on by the Taiwan floods by now. Even if not, we’ve got another *10* years before RHEL 7 leaves production level 3 support.
Apparently Red Hat picked this number by doing similar projections, and set it fairly conservatively.
What this means is that some of us will be DIYing petabyte scale arrays in a single commodity chassis by the time RHEL 8 ships. I’m not talking about high-dollar SAN or Big Iron stuff here; we’ll be making them from commodity parts you can buy off NewEgg without a special order. Wow.
On 06/15/2014 04:23 AM, Warren Young wrote:
On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
[*] The absolute XFS filesystem size limit is about 8 million terabytes, which requires about 500 cubic meters of the densest HDDs available today.
I’ve been wondering what 500 TB looks like, so I worked it out. It requires a mere 100 x 6 TB disks for 20% redundancy.
Viewed that way, 500 TB looks a little on the low side. You can get a 9U server chassis[*] with its face almost covered with 50 hot-swap 3.5 inch drive trays. That puts us only one size doubling from being able to achieve a max-size array in a single server.
Even if we assume SAS drives, we’re still only about 3 doublings away from filling that 9U chassis with a 500 TB array. RHEL7 will be in production 1 level support for another 5 years, enough time for those 3 doublings.
I assume we’re climbing out of the doubling doldrums brought on by the Taiwan floods by now. Even if not, we’ve got another *10* years before RHEL 7 leaves production level 3 support.
Apparently Red Hat picked this number by doing similar projections, and set it fairly conservatively.
What this means is that some of us will be DIYing petabyte scale arrays in a single commodity chassis by the time RHEL 8 ships. I’m not talking about high-dollar SAN or Big Iron stuff here; we’ll be making them from commodity parts you can buy off NewEgg without a special order. Wow.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Aside from some corporation...or from a home business perspective where expansion is expected. I don't think I would attempt this, but I'm sure there are those who actually need to do something like this to ensure their site remains stable reliable and robust. I can only imagine the nightmares that would begin for me trying to get this all up and running.
EGO II
On 6/15/2014 1:23 AM, Warren Young wrote:
I assume we’re climbing out of the doubling doldrums brought on by the Taiwan floods by now.
The floods that knocked out WDC were in Thailand, not Taiwan.
and I do believe the spinning media industry is running into physics and much further progress at doubling areal density past the 6GB per 3.5" drive level will be harder and less reliable. Meanwhile price::capacity in SSD/flash is linear
-
Eero Volotinen -
EGO-II.1 -
Jeremy Hoel -
John R Pierce -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mike Hanby -
Paul Heinlein -
Rainer Duffner -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Bishop -
Warren Young