Re: Pollution and HW trends, was:Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth

[Marek <marekp iafrica com>]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:31:00 -0800
Ric Tibbetts <ric chadera net> wrote:

> I'm going to refrain from commenting on the "bloat", and the pollution
> issues, although I agree with them entirely.
> 
> I found it interesting that you brought up the size of harddrives. The
> new generation of mega-drives are being built for the windows crowd, who
> don't know any better. ;)
> Personally, I've found that a 9GB SCSI drive is as large as I want to
> go, and still favoring 4GB drives.
> Why?
> Data Risk, and performance.
> I'd much rather have to contend with my data in 4 - 9 GB chunks, than in
> 60-80 Gb at a time. 60-80GB on a single disk is FAR to much data in one
> spot. Should it fail, what kind of backup device are you using that can
> back that whole thing up? There are also speed & seek issues with that
> much data in one spot. By spreading the data over multiple disks
> (especially SCSIs), you can access the data faster, by accessing
> multiple disks at once (this lesson was learned on large databases long
> ago!!).
> 
> Want to give your system a boost? do this:
> 
> Install a string of SCSI drives. Make the lead disk a 4 GB, and you can
> use either a couple of 4, or 9GBs for the rest.
> Put the OS "only" on the lead disk. Nothing else!
> Put the applications on the second disk. Nothing else.
> Put your home directory, and data on the third disk
> 
> And watch the difference in performance. Keeping your OS, and the
> applications on separate disks is like upgrading your whole system. it's
> noticeable.
> 
> Another benefit of this layout: When you upgrade your OS, you're only
> messing with the OS. All your applications, and application data are on
> separate disks, and do not need to be touched! An after thought to this
> layout: You could use a 9GB drive for the lead disk, and only partition
> up half of it. Then when it's time to upgrade, put the new OS on the
> second half. You could then easily switch back to the old OS if the new
> one was a total mess (as some releases have been!). Hmm.. Actually, this
> could be done with a 4Gb. I have my server running a 2GB lead disk. So
> the OS alone, will fit in 2GB. So you could use a 4GB for the lead disk,
> and save some $$$. :)
> 
> Ok, so 3 or more SCSI disks on the same box is pricey, and not every one
> has the budget for it.
> Or maybe you do! Has anyone looked at the cost of 4 GB SCSi drives on
> the auction sites? They've gotten dirt cheap, because everyone is going
> to the larger drives! Remember, with SCSI-2 you can address up to 15
> drives on a single string (and PLEASE don't put your CD-Rom on the same
> string as your harddrives, it just slows the whole system down!).
> 
> In a professional environment, there should be no excuse for loading
> everything onto a single huge drive. It just makes people whine about
> performance. :) Imagine what the poor single disk is having to contend
> with, when it's trying to find OS commands, swap, your home directory,
> application instructions, AND data all at once, and for multiple users.
> It's bad on a single user system, intollerable on a multi-user system.
> This problem is being exaserbated by the new generation of bloated
> software, and operating systems, where there is even more data to have
> to go find.
> 
> I would have to strongly second the desire for smaller, faster drives.
> I'd much rather string 3 or 4 smaller SCSI drives together, than stuff
> all this new, bloated software onto a single mega drive.
> Yes, the new mega IDE drives are cheap. But what you're doing is taking
> your new Ghz processor, and binding it up solid with an I/O syatem that
> can't hope to keep up with it. Thus, you're seeing very little
> improvement in speeds, despite the ever increasing speeds of the
> processors.
> 
> You're driving a Ferrari down a dirt road, and complaining that you
> can't go 200 MPH.
> Kinda silly isn't it? ;)
> 
> JMHO-YMMV
> 
> Ric
> 
> Marco Fioretti wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > First of all thanks to everybody for sharing their thoughts on this,
> > especially Bill Crawford. I'm answering just today because I was sick.
> > 
> > Summarizing (so to speak: sorry if it's longer than I wanted):
> > 
> > 1) I was referring only to humanly noticeable bloat, and agree that
> >    for most users it's the only that should matter: not if it takes
> >    12 vs 11.75 MB of RAM, but if it takes 50 vs 5 second to start (on
> >    the same old machine, obviously)
> > 
> > 2) I'm glad to see that, regardless of enthusiastic reviews here and
> >    there, many beside me *do* see their favourite programs starting
> >    slower and slower. There *is* a problem, isn't it?
> > 
> > 3) Even more glad to see that somebody else pointed out first that
> >    "can' run it or don't need it? Don't upgrade" is just not feasible
> >    in real life. If you want to fix bugs and security holes, you have
> >    no choices.
> > 
> > 4) POLLUTION: energy saving fixes the problem only *during* the life
> >    of the device. At the end of the life cycle, *all* electronics, not
> > just PCs, should be dumped separately and recicled just as we do with
> > paper, aluminum, glass. Of course, the real solution with any
> > pollution problem is *not* recycling, but consume less, i.e. in our
> > context, use a PC until it physically falls apart, or we *really* need
> > to do something more than it can handle. Repeat at leisure,
> > substituting the proper reasons,  for schools
> > and third world countries.
> > 
> > Consumer-wise, we should maybe start to send different messages to the
> > industry. Myself, I'm looking for the most efficient way to tell the
> > generic HDD maker:
> > 
> > "listen, you moron! *Not* everybody in the world collects tons of MP3
> > and movies. I *don't* want a 60 G HDD for what a 30 G costed
> > yesterday. I want a *3* (yes, three) GB disk, because it's enough, but
> > I want it damn fast, extremely silent, with no cooling needs whatsoever, and
> > dissipating less energy than a led. Oh, and dirty cheap, of course..."
> > 
> > Ideas?
> > 
> > NOTE:   For an enlightening note on what kind of dirty puppy is
> >         sitting below your desk, read:
> > 
> >         http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/30/siliconhell.html
> > 
> >         (I'm interested in similar stories. Email the URLs privately,
> >         please)
> > 
> > 5) Again on proper coding techniques and packetization. Bill said:
> > 
> > >  That's not entirely true; if the application is well written, then you
> > > just don't ever page in the code for the 80% of functions you don't use
> > > and so the memory should be saved.  How well this works in practice, of
> > > course, is open to question.
> > >
> > True. The problem is that on older machines, the 80% you'll never use
> > *in RAM* won't ever fit in older hard disks, so you won't install it
> > at all, if it's only one huge package or collection of them.
> >  Let's face it, KDE and Gnome are
> > highly modular, code-reuse, common-framework, yadda-yadda... only if
> > you install all the pieces. I agree that my original Ghostscript
> > example was not the best, but try to set up an internet kiosk with
> > only the last version of Konqueror or Galeon on a P90 with 100/200
> > Megs of disk space....
> > 
> > It will fit and run just fine on that "obsolete" HW, but only after you
> > have recompiled everything and your b**t twice, swearing like a drunken
> > sailor in the process.
> > 
> > 
> > 6) Last but not least:
> > > > Conclusion: start saying to everybody claiming that "HW is cheap, so
> > > >  bloatware is harmless" "OK, if it's so cheap  *YOU* go and buy me a new
> > > > PC"
> > >
> > >  Good idea!  *grin*
> > 
> > Thanks! Shall we start a WWW campaign for this? A logo, anybody :-))) ?
> > 
> >         Thanks for your time,
> >                                 Marco
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > enigma-list mailing list
> > enigma-list redhat com
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/enigma-list
> 
> -- 
> Ric Tibbetts
> 
> Linux registration number: 55684
> If you want to help advertise Linux - point your friends to
> http://counter.li.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enigma-list mailing list
> enigma-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/enigma-list

Hi

Most informative, thank you. Say i have two, 2 Gig disks. Would i be correct in saying that i put all the direcories on one and home on the other ? i am a bit unsure how to sort the directory strucure.

Marek