Has anyone noticed that Verizon’s choices of phones are lacking? I mean if you want LTE, you currently have 2 choices: The HTC Thunderbolt or the DROID Charge. Both of these phones are single processor 1 GHZ phones. AT&T has the Atrix and T-Mobile has the G2X which both use the Tegra 2 (Dual core 1GHZ ARM processor). If you are thinking of iPhone, you need to remember that with Verizon you cant use 3G data and voice at the same time. It isn’t that the technology isn’t there, it is just that Verizon chooses not to use it (Verizon could be using SVDO instead of EVDO to fix that problem).
I guess what I’m trying to say is that in my opinion there isn’t a good phone on the Verizon network. I wish Verizon understood that a good network with crappy phones is a crappy option. So when is this going to change?
Share on Facebook
Tags:
Cell Phone
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately on RAID. We are looking into upgrading some servers. I noticed that Microsoft tends to recommend RAID 10 over RAID 5. I spent a lot of time thinking about why they’d recommend RAID 10 over RAID 5. I do understand that when a drive fails with RAID 5, during the rebuild performance is effected much greater than it would be with RAID 10. I also understand that RAID 5 is also more vulnerable than RAID 10 as well (RAID 5 can only withstand a single drive failure. RAID 10 can lose up to half of the drives as long as the original and mirrored drive don’t die).
RAID 5 had its own advantages though. Redundancy doesn’t cost you half of the total disk space. Sequential Reads and Sequential writes can be faster with a decent RAID controller. It has to calculate the parity, but the only penalty is writing the parity to disk (1 penalty for writing each stripe. Where as with RAID 10, you have to write every block twice). Random Reads shouldn’t be effected too much because they could end up reading from any of the disks in the array.
The problem area for RAID 5 is random writes. You can see it in the benchmarks listed here. If we pick a random part of the disk and decide to write a 4KB block, with RAID 10, we just need to write that same block to the same area on the mirrored disk. Thus we incur a penalty of 2 (We have to write the block twice) when writing a random block for RAID 10. On RAID 5 however, we cannot just write a random block, but must also recalculate the parity block and rewrite it to the disk. In order to calculate parity, we have to read what the block being overwritten is, read what the parity block is. Then compare the old block to the new rewritten block. For each bit that is changing, we must switch the parity. Anyway, with a RAID 5 array of 4 disks and larger, you incur at least 2 reads and 2 writes (Or 4 I/O operations compared to RAID 10′s 2 I/O operations).
Share on Facebook
Tags:
Microsoft,
RAID
I’ve been looking at server upgrade pricing and features of Windows Server lately. I was digging through Microsoft website when I ran across the Edition Comparison by Technical Specifications. Apparently Windows Server 2008 R2 standard is limited to 32 GB of RAM! Windows 7 Pro x64 is limited to 192GB of RAM! Given Server can do a lot of things that Windows 7 can’t, but 32 GB of RAM is a low limit for a server grade product.
32 GB of RAM is quite limited since they allow 4 processor sockets. That is a mere 8 GB of RAM per processor. Intel server processors typically use triple channel memory, while AMD’s newest processors use quad channel memory. This means if you have 2 Intel processors and want to have the same amount of memory for both processors, while optimizing memory (Means all 3 channels are filled with the same amount of memory per processor), then you are limited to six 4 GB and six 1 GB memory sticks (30 GB total). With AMD, we are limited to eight 4GB sticks. It is easy to see that buying 8 and 16 GB sticks are out of the question in this situation with Server Standard.
So what am I going to do about it? —- I’m not going to buy Standard. The Enterprise version of Windows Server is limited to 2 TB of RAM. It also allows for you to run 4 VMs of Windows Server on the system that it is physically installed (vs 1 on Standard). It also has fail-over clustering which is nice if you are running Exchange (It means you can add the server into a Database Availability Group). Enterprise is quite a bit more expensive though ($3999 vs $1209), however Enterprise comes with 15 more Windows CALs than Standard (valued at about $600), so Enterprise will only cost you about $2200 more than Standard.
Share on Facebook
Tags:
Memory Limits,
Windows Server