Re: Non of us get to judge him now
"It's a paradox that in order to protect free speech you are very occasionally forced to censor speech which will end it." - You do not understand or appreciate free speech.
8 posts • joined 12 Apr 2017
Argh - timed out on trying to edit my previous post, apologies for the double post.
Also need to keep in mind that there was a large lobbying effort by large tech companies to pass NN since it would benefit them and a communications campaign by the government to convince people their actions were beneficial. I doubt 70-80% of people really want NN as it was implemented, and how you frame the question will impact how people respond to it!
Just Enough, I respectfully disagree with your premise. If you look at OpenSecrets (which admittedly is just one source, I'm sure there is more info out there to get a more complete picture), you will see the contributions to the D-side far outweighs the contributions to the R-side recently. I doubt that 70-80% of Americans really believe that NN as implemented is a good idea (how you frame the question is important!), but maybe a majority do because of the communications campaign by the government at that time to mislead them that it was a good idea?
As others have pointed out in the comments, absolutely none of the doomsday predictions after the NN repeal have come to pass (and IMO, will not come to pass). Also, I have not seen anybody point out what was wrong with the internet in the early/mid 2000s that it needed heavy-handed federal government regulation. In my view, if a system is functioning well in a mostly open market, there should be justification from the government for broad reach into that system. We didn't get any justification for NN in the first place and were handed a policy that didn't address anything that was going wrong.
I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am, but SPEC benchmarks require that dedup and other data services are turned off. On Pure arrays, dedup is always on. As we always say, the fairest fight/best indicator of performance is to run your real-world workload against the vendors you are evaluating.
Pure employee here. Can you clarify whether NetApp's is offering arrays with an NVMe back-end too or solely NVMe drives? I do not believe the arrays this is true for the arrays but my knowledge could be out of date so correct me if I'm off here.
BTW - Pure has been offering a full NVMe product (from the drives to the controllers) for almost a year already.
Pure employee here. Can you please elaborate what you mean by "Pure x70 NVME is not shipping yet"? The X70 and DirectFlash drives (fully NVMe technology from the drive through the array) have been shipping for the better part of a year for customer production use and POC units were available before that.
The argument that NASA is an R&D org and not a product org doesn't hold water when discussing SLS. There is very little new technology going into the SLS. In fact, the entire thing was written into law to re-use as much of the Space Shuttle technology and industrial base as possible. Same contractors and same jobs in the same Congressional districts. It's embarrassing that this organization is billions over budget and years behind schedule trying to deliver a new system out of technology established in the 1980s. All for a system that doesn't have any current purpose or concrete future mission. I highly recommend reading The Plundering of NASA by R.D. Boozer for more information on this topic.
Pure employee here
ManMountain1, it looks like the confusion is coming from the following line in the article:
1PB effective capacity in 3U, 183 TB raw
This is not the case, looks like the author multiplied 10x18.3 instead of 20x18.3. If you look at Pure's graphic and also the second to last paragraph in the article, you can see that the 1PB effective capacity is based on 20 18.3TB drives at a 5:1 data reduction ratio. The output of the math adds up, just make sure you are using the right inputs ;)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021