Had the typical weekly outage today - the results of which were much happier than last week. We were also hoping to fsck the mysql data drive that gave us grief last week to make sure it's okay, but the outage was taking too long so we'll do that later. We did fire off our weekly science database backup which quickly failed due to finding a corrupt page or two. This happens from time to time - and turns out this particular corruption is within a index that we can easily drop and recreate if the usual data-cleanup utility doesn't work. Also science database replication broke at some recent point, probably due to the primary database catching up on backlogged inserts caused some kind of handshake timeout. No big deal - replication is catching up now.

The campus network graphs are all out, which is how we confirm what our current bandwidth usage is. I hope this will get fixed soon. I feel like a doctor without a stethoscope.

- Matt

---

-- BOINC/SETI@home network/web/science/development person
-- "Any idiot can have a good idea. What is hard is to do it." - Jeanne-Claude

Good job, guys...thanks for the update and keep up the good work!!

---

Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

Had the typical weekly outage today - the results of which were much happier than last week. We were also hoping to fsck the mysql data drive that gave us grief last week to make sure it's okay, but the outage was taking too long so we'll do that later. We did fire off our weekly science database backup which quickly failed due to finding a corrupt page or two. This happens from time to time - and turns out this particular corruption is within a index that we can easily drop and recreate if the usual data-cleanup utility doesn't work. Also science database replication broke at some recent point, probably due to the primary database catching up on backlogged inserts caused some kind of handshake timeout. No big deal - replication is catching up now.

The campus network graphs are all out, which is how we confirm what our current bandwidth usage is. I hope this will get fixed soon. I feel like a doctor without a stethoscope.

- Matt

Or maybe a blind Doctor? ;) Good work Matt and company. :)

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I am a complete database neophyte, but it seems that seti has a constant set of problems with database integrity, filesystem integrity, backup failures, and/or control script adequecy. Yet, there seem to be some db-pro's on this message board from time to time. Hence the following question:

Since this is a shoe string project, one might expect all kinds of difficulty. But do organizations with as large or larger databases have this level of problems (i.e. credit card companies, or whatever) and they hide it (by having huge staffs and lots of hardware to hide behind), or is there technology (or methodologies) that seti is missing that would reduce the pain?

(Please don't tell me about the hardware donor lists; I'm sure new hardware might always help and so I don't dispute it, but is the old hardware really that bad? What's the argument?)

Just curious.

I am a complete database neophyte, but it seems that seti has a constant set of problems with database integrity, filesystem integrity, backup failures, and/or control script adequecy. Yet, there seem to be some db-pro's on this message board from time to time. Hence the following question:

Since this is a shoe string project, one might expect all kinds of difficulty. But do organizations with as large or larger databases have this level of problems (i.e. credit card companies, or whatever) and they hide it (by having huge staffs and lots of hardware to hide behind), or is there technology (or methodologies) that seti is missing that would reduce the pain?

(Please don't tell me about the hardware donor lists; I'm sure new hardware might always help and so I don't dispute it, but is the old hardware really that bad? What's the argument?)

Just curious.

I am also a complete database neophyte. I have to believe that the Seti data base is probably one of the largest data bases on the planet. Just due to that fact problems would arise that don't normally happen. They (Berkeley) are pushing the envelope hard with this project.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

I am also a complete database neophyte. I have to believe that the Seti data base is probably one of the largest data bases on the planet. Just due to that fact problems would arise that don't normally happen. They (Berkeley) are pushing the envelope hard with this project.

I'm sure it's not the biggest db on the planet.
The last statement on the db size I can recall was that it just fits into RAM - that makes 28GB. (I'm running db's of that size back in office - but with far less clients)

The problem is the number of clients/tasks hammering on that db.

Oracle or DB2 might perform a little better, but they eat up time and money - and Seti hasn't got both.

So IMHO the only way out is bigger (donated) hardware.

---

mic.

Hey fellas Matt Eric and the troops wo wok behind the scenes (good to keep your heads down.....you cannot get shot) slowdowns database failures who cares?
Just try to keep your unpaid slaves happy, not like they have at RieselSieve. Can't Bryan link up a laptop or summat just to let his fans know what the heck is going /has gone down???

You do a fantastic job..KEEP GOING

UBT-McTooth

I'd love to sponsor you but have you seen the price of QUAD core Intels in the UK

---

I'd love to sponsor you but have you seen the price of QUAD core Intels in the UK

I would think with the impending litigation caused by the Inquiry into Intels dealing the prices would be dropping VERY rapidly. I know they have come down here lately.

One of the largest DBs on the planet is Google. They have a warehouse full of computers that are linked together into one DB.

---

BOINC WIKI

I would think with the impending litigation caused by the Inquiry into Intels dealing the prices would be dropping VERY rapidly. I know they have come down here lately.

Think again--the litigation generally accuses Intel of abusively _lowering_ prices, not of abusively keeping them too high.

This is not so preposterous as it sounds--lowering prices in particular ways for particular induced outcomes by firms with particular market shares can in fact be an antitrust violation in many jurisdictions.

Prices will generally come down as required for Intel to sell out the continuously increasing output of its factories. Selling less than all they can make usually is inefficient--selling more than they can make is impossible. It really is just about that simple, though there are other factors that drive the relative pricing of specific ingredients in the product mix.

---

Re: pending litigation... I think the trend in the EU is troublesome. Maybe MSFT and INTC should just pull out of sales in the EU? At some point, the EU rules are going to be too much to contend with. Then the rest of the world will have to pay less for INTC and MSFT products and the EU can just buy AMD and Linux stuff. Everybody will be happy!

Just day dreaming of course.

Re: pending litigation... I think the trend in the EU is troublesome. Maybe MSFT and INTC should just pull out of sales in the EU?...

I'm sure both sides are very happy with sales in the EU.

Provided that is that all sides can "play fair".

Past experience suggests there's some very nasty business that is perpetrated... Such is the power of monopolies and dictatorships...

Regards,
Martin

(All just my personal observations of course...)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

My perspective:

Monopoly is a misunderstood, misapplied term. Consider the very different criteria that the EU and US have regarding how it is defined.

A monopoly only makes sense to me when there is an essentially limited resource that is controlled. Examples might include real estate, oil, diamonds; not technology.

Technology generally does not exist long enough for a monopoly case to proceed through the courts. That is, technology morphs and consumers interest shift far faster than the legal system, which then is ineffectual and drives consumers costs up. Furthermore, the costs to produce technology must be recouped with a reasonable profit (as judged by the stock market) within a relative short window of time. I.e., modern technology has a shelf life.

Absurdly high fines for absurdly posited monopoly charges benefit no one except the politicians levying the fines.

I find the MS case especially humorous. Very few people buy software directly from MS. Instead they buy their software-equipped PC's from vendors such as HP and Dell. So if there is culpability in the consumer market place, then HP and Dell ought to be slammed to a greater degree. Yet, noticing that both companies seem to offer software alternatives, I still conclude that the EU consumer is making the choices and MS is being asked to take the fall. In the EU, the consumer is not being directly protected by the monopoly laws; it is the competing companies who are considered the victims. This is a really perverted way of thinking if you ask me, but its the EU culture I conclude.

In the Intel case, the complaints are based on alleged business practices. Once again it is not the consumer but the competitors who make the claim and stand to benefit. I've seen business in Europe and frankly kickbacks for exclusive rights seem to be the norm. I'm not saying that Intel is doing this, but that is the nature of the claims. So, I interpret Intel's prosecution (persecution?) in terms of the 'deep-pocket' strategy; once again its a Europe thing.

If you want to laugh about the Intel attacks, however, look within the Democrat controlled US Congress. Chucky Schumer is the senior senator from New York, who never met a TV camera he didn't love. He helped with a deal between AMD and New York state for a high tech center in Albany. Jobs, mullah, TV coverage. Ok. But then AMD fell (threw themselves?) on hard times and is positioned to pull out of the deal. Schumer became furious. So he sic's the Justice department on Intel (who had recently been exonerated from other business malfeasance claims by the same Justice department). Schumer has no force to balance him, so with a new administration looming, his slimy powerbrokering wins out. And those of us who want a cheaper Penryn dual quad will have to wait, I suppose.

My perspective:

While it's true that Microsoft with DOS and Intel with their x86 processor line, along with IBM's "goof" of not protecting the original IBM PC architecture launched a computer revolution that is now dominate in the world today, it's that dominance now that has put both companies in positions where their might can prevent any chance of competition.

IBM insisted at the time of the original PC that Intel needed to license their processor to another company for 10 years, which happened to be AMD. Later when AMD undercut Intel's pricing on it's floating point coprocessor by several hundred dollars it only became more of a thorn in Intel's side. Up until a tad over 2 years ago, AMD's Athlon 64/X2 series of CPUs outperformed Intel's Pentium IV/D line, dominating them in some areas. However strangely the majority of PCs from the big names like HP and Dell were still Intel based. The costs, at least via DIY sources, were similar so there wasn't a cost issue.

AMD claims that this was a result of Intel offering CPUs for less if manufacturers didn't offer machines built around AMD CPUs. Since the PC market for the last 10 years or so has become a thin margin business, every "incentive" from a supplier helps a PC manufacturer's bottom line. This is what the EU, Japan, Korea and now the US is looking into.

Now competition isn't a bad thing. Just recently both nVidia and AMD/ATI released their latest and greatest video cards for the gaming market. Because of the unexpected performance of AMD/ATI's latest offering, it forced nVidia to lower the suggest MSRP of their $650 card down to $450 and their $400 card to $300. On the other hand with the death of HD-DVD, Blu-ray players have actually gone up in price. We don't need to see this with CPUs.

As for Microsoft, well back in the days of DOS they were pretty innocuous. DOS was everywhere, relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of the system and had few if any other features bundled in with it. It spawned entire markets of add-ons from defraggers, networking, file managers, memory extenders, window managers, etc. However starting back in the days of Windows 3.1, Microsoft started bundling common utilities and programs. But that was OK, Windows was still an addon to DOS. However once Win 95 came out, entire companies were quickly driven out of business when the packages they developed and sold were now "standard" with Win 95. And every OS release from Microsoft since then have included additional common utilities.

This is much different than the early days of NT when Microsoft claimed that the Win32 windows environment was simply one of many that would run on top of it's kernel. Microsoft talked of OS/2, Posix and hinted at adding X-windows in later releases. The kernel was also to be available on other CPUs than just Intel compatible and was for a time.

Nowadays the EU beef with Microsoft was similar to our Justice Department's beef. That Microsoft is bundling an entire class of software for "free" into their OS offering which in turn driving companies out of business. After all, who would buy software that does the same job if it came for free? For the vast majority of consumers the answer is "not us". And since 90%+ of all new PCs ship with a Microsoft OS, Microsoft can simply overnight become the leader of browser or streaming video or MP3 playback or peer to peer networking or even antivirus/malware by simply including it with their OS. This is what the EU is fining Microsoft over. Microsoft's retort is that whatever "new" application they added into their latest OS is now critically integrated into the OS so tightly that it can't possibly be removed. Why the heck does Notepad "need" Internet Explorer to work? This is nothing but using your dominance in your market to take over other markets. If you are a software developer, just pray that the niche market your software is in doesn't attract Microsoft's notice and if they do you better hope they are willing to buy your company for a reasonable price instead slaving off floors 2 and 3 of building 19 to clone your software.

In conclusion both Intel and Microsoft are extremely dominate players in the computer industry, so much so that they can influence their "partners" in ways that allow Intel and Microsoft to control those markets as well. Competition is good for consumers by keeping price down as well as continual innovation. If Intel weakens their competitors through unfair practices so they fail and Microsoft continues to absorb software market after software market into their OS to become the dominate leader in those markets overnight, consumers are in real trouble.

---

"Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh." - The Doctor

I don't disagree with your arguments, per se, but they are narrow and retrospective. There are many counterarguments and rationalizations available to explain your observations, not the least of which is the tendency of people generally not to take risks, being slow to change or to embrace 'new' ideas. It is easy to blame 'the system' and 'the big bad corporation', when we are frequently our worst enemy. (concrete example: oil consumption)

Instead, I look at the legal gyrations from at least two broader facts: that a technology monopoly is a fleeting advantage, where advantages will correct themselves in an open market, and that monopoly litigation usually does not help the individual citizen, where centralized politicians and less efficient/cleaver competitors benefit instead. Looking forward, applying an open market decision process makes far more sense to me than resorting to the twisty-winding delibration process of a legal system that barely understands technology.

My perspective:

While it's true that Microsoft with DOS and Intel with their x86 processor line, along with IBM's "goof" of not protecting the original IBM PC architecture launched a computer revolution that is now dominate in the world today, it's that dominance now that has put both companies in positions where their might can prevent any chance of competition.

...

Interesting post, I agree with most of it, but it's a bit Off Topic for the original thread, and this forum.

Keith.

I don't disagree with your arguments, per se, but they are narrow and retrospective. There are many counterarguments and rationalizations available...

There always are. What however, is the most plausible?

Have you seen the Microsoft "Doomsday Document"?

Have you heard the various comments from Steve Ballmer regarding Linux? And then seen the actions taken?...

Instead, I look at the legal gyrations from at least two broader facts: that a technology monopoly is a fleeting advantage, where advantages will correct themselves in an open market...

Is the desktop computer market really free (freedom) and open?

twisty-winding delibration process of a legal system that barely understands technology.

I agree, which is where the legal system should keep with what people do and how they do it with whatever technology. Regardless of the technological complexity, the legal system should still be able to keep up with dodgy business practises.

Unfortunately, the 'technological' aspects appear to get used as a convenient smokescreen and diversion to make the court cases impossibly detailed and turgid and long and expensive to the point that a vastly rich defendant can bankrupt the prosecution. The rich defendant stays rich...

I wonder which have been the longest court cases? And the most expensive?


Regards,
Martin

No disclaimers needed! Just my observations...


Continue this over on "Message from Microsoft" ?

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I wonder which have been the longest court cases? And the most expensive?

If you want to stay within the computer industry, it would be IBM. They have had cases where the lawyers who ended the case weren't born when the case was started. Time

---

I wonder which have been the longest court cases? And the most expensive?

If you want to stay within the computer industry, it would be IBM. They have had cases where the lawyers who ended the case weren't born when the case was started. Time

Thanks for an excellent link.

Looks like history does indeed repeat itself. Only the names and dates change...

... critics contend that the main thing the trial will prove is that the antitrust laws have become so complex to enforce in a modern economy that they are of little use in curbing business giantism.

The issues, to be sure, are important enough. One is a constantly vexing problem of antitrust law: how to define what "market" is involved. ...

... How did IBM achieve its pre-eminent position? The Government says it used predatory tactics. Barr retorted in court last week that the company's success resulted simply from "better products, greater productive efficiency, better service, right judgments about the future...

... And all is fair in the game of "vertical integration" and "lock-in"?...


As is said in another large country, "Interesting times...".

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)