From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:12 In article <ogp3u2t5etlcgrhm0rcup6065455p0s1gr(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Feb 07 12:27:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>No. It is memory whose addressing is larger than available physical >>memory. > > > It means that code segments that would be in MEMORY has to be >offloaded onto slower, more permanent (intended for) storage mediums >to be recalled later. The system takes a speed hit with VM, but is >permitted to do tasks that would otherwise not be doable. Virtual memory inplementations meant that you can run a program that has a memory reference whose address is larger than physical memory. > > All you have proven is that you know how to use a search engine. You still do not know to whom you are talking, do you? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:18 In article <ershih$ui3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <errvlm$8ss_004(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <erpnd5$c02$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>No, if the copy checks the dates, you can load the backups in any order. >>>What you do in practice is mount the complete backup and then the newest >>>incremental. You then mount the previous incremental and then the one >>>before that. >> >>This is one way to do a full restore. Note that it may also restore >>the cause of the problem. > >It only restores things to as they were. It doesn't fix any buggy code in >the process. This is as much as you can ask of a restore. Repair >software is another issue. In this case, I'm not talking about software bugs. I'm talking about hardware bugs that caused the problem. Every OS has its own approach to cover the hardware that is bad. If you do a physical bit-to-bit copy for the backup, you also copy the bad spots. > > >>>If your software is any good, it will let you know when you can stop. All >>>that's needed is to record the dates on all of the files. A fairly simple >>>script can tell you if you have more to do. >> >>Software cannot tell you if the file you want is no longer on >>storage. > >What the heck do you mean by that? Obviously software can tell you if a >file exists or not. All it needs is a list of all the files that do >exist. It cannot tell you that something is missing if it's not there. It takes a human to decide that. > > >>> >>> >>>>Another method was to do a full backup save each day. This will >>>>work until you find that you lost a source file sometime in the >>>>last 12 years. Now how do you find the last save of that file? >>> >>>This is not a problem in practice if the copy is smart about dates. >> >>AFAIK, only our system had enough dates stored in each file's >>RIB (retrieval information block) that could do this. > >On a Linux machine, there is enough information to do it. No, it's missing some...two, I think. The third isn't necessary. > > >>>The usual practice is to do a full backup every so often and incremental >>>ones in between. >> >>Yes but only for static storage. This will not cover data >>that is transaction-based. > >Yes it does cover transaction based data. Take the example of banking >information. The account balances as of, lets say, midnight are stored. >From that point forwards, you have the transaction records. The >transaction records for a given account contains not just the movement of >the money but other information such as the new total. In this case one >needs only look back in time for each account to the last time there was a >break in the transactions. In a real time system, when you are doing >rapid transactions, the totals are always out of date. The first >transaction after a break, has a correct total. It means that such a system has to have some way to "replay" the transactions (all of them in sequential order) from the point of the snapshot. This is also a form of a backup that needs to be kept in at least three geographical, (and networked, I think) at once. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:33 In article <45E1B4F4.1B7C7FA2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against your account >> without >> any physical permission written by you? > >You mean a debit ? No. I'm talking about processes that handle checks. > >I could hardly live without it. I'm trying to establish procedures that don't include checks. It's a pesky problem. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:36 In article <ersgt4$ui3$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <45E1B4F4.1B7C7FA2(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against >>your account >>> without >>> any physical permission written by you? >> >>You mean a debit ? >> >>I could hardly live without it. > >Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer >of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time >since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check. > The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped traveling. Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the piece of paper you sent to him; in addition, the bills you pay now have fine print that says writing check to them gives them permission to access your account. There used to be a procedural fire wall between the payee and your account; it was the check clearing centers. These centers are what the Federal Reserve Board is trying to remove from the process. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2007 07:38
In article <45E1CEE4.250B614(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against >> >> your account without any physical permission written by you? >> > >> >You mean a debit ? >> > >> >I could hardly live without it. >> >> Even if you did try, at the bank the check causes an electronic transfer >> of money. These days, the checks don't travel. It has been a long time >> since physical money went from bank to bank in reaction to a check. > >Back in 1971 when I opened my first bank account, they still posted you the paid >cheques. That soon disappeared. I'm still getting my cancelled checks back but there is huge pressure to switch. > >Electronic debits are invaluable. I just signed up to a telecoms provider whose >call charges are insanely cheap. They won't accept cheques and stuff. It all has >to be done electronically. > >http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php# > >I'm still having some trouble believing this. Landline calls inside the UK are 4 >pence regardless of duration ! Calling the USA / Canada / France / Germany / >Singapore even ! costs 1p per minute plus 4p connection charge. This is a different problem; I'm also working on that one. I find it very strange that, as the telecom technology improves by leaps and bounds, the quality of the calls deteriorates at proportionally. /BAH |