Search Results

Search found 8638 results on 346 pages for 'vs'.

Page 46/346 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • Linux Mint vs Kubuntu

    - by Hannes de Jager
    I'm currently running Kubuntu Karmic Koala and are eager to upgrade to 10.04 the end of the month. But I've also spotted Linux Mint and heard a couple of good things about it. It looks snazzy but I was wondering how it compares to Ubuntu/Kubuntu. For those that ran both can you provide some pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Internal drives vs USB-3 with external SSD or eSata with External SSD

    - by normstorm
    I have a need to carry VMWare Virtual Machines with me for work. These are very large files (each VM is 20GB or more) and I carry around about 40 to 50 VM's to simulate different software configurations for different client needs. Key: they won't fit on the internal hard drive of my current laptop. I currently execute the VM's from an external 7200RPM 2.5" USB-2 drive. I keep copies of the VM's on other 5400 external USB-2 drives. The VM's work from this drive, but they are slow, costing me much time and frustration. It can take upwards of 30 minutes just to make a copy of one of the VM's. They can take upwards of 10-15 minutes to fully launch and then they operate sluggishly. I am buying a new laptop (Core I7, 8GB RAM and other high-end specs). I intend to buy an SSD for the O/S volume (C:). This SSD will not be large enough to hold the VM's. I have always wanted a second internal hard drive to operate the VM's. To have two hard drives, though, I am finding that I will have to go to a 17" laptop which would be bulky/heavy. I am instead considering purchasing a 15" laptop with either an eSATA port or USB-3 ports and then purchasing two external drives. One of the drives might be an external SSD (maybe OCX brand) for operating the VM's and the other a 7400RPM 1TB hard drive for carrying around the VM's not currently in use. The question is which options would give me the biggest bang for the buck and the weight: 1) 2nd Internal SSD hard drive. This would mean buying a 17" laptop with two drive "bays". The first bay would hold an SSD drive for the C: drive. I would leave the first bay empty from the manufacture and then purchase/install an aftermarket SSD drive. This second SSD drive would have to be very large (256 GB), which would be expensive. I would still also need another external hard drive for carrying around the VM's not in use. 2) 2nd internal hard drive - 7400 RPM. Again, a 17" laptop would be required, but there are models available with on SSD drive for the C: drive and a second 7200 RPM hard drives. The second drive could probably be large enough to hold the VM's in use as well as those not in use. But would it be fast enough to drive the VM's? 3) USB-3 with External SSD. I could buy a 15" laptop with an SSD drive for the C: drive and a second hard drive for general files. I would operate the VM's from an external USB-3 SSD drive and have a third USB-3 external 7200 RPM drive for holding the VM's not in use. 4) eSATA with External SSD. Ditto, just eSATA instead of USB-3 5) USB-3 with External 7400 RPM drive. Ditto, but the drive running the VM's would be USB-3 attached 7400 RPM drives rather than SSD. 6) eSATA with External 7400 RPM drive. Dittor, but the drive running the VM's would be eSATA attached 7400 RPM drives rather than SSD. Any thoughts on this and any creative solutions?

    Read the article

  • USB Hardware vs. Software Write Lock

    - by TreyK
    I'm in the market for a USB flash drive, and remember this cool feature a tiny 32MB flash drive of mine had: a write lock switch. This seemed like it would be an amazing feature to have as a shield against any nastiness happening to the drive on an unfamiliar computer. However, very few drives on the market offer this feature. Instead, it seems that forms of software protection are the more prominent method. This software protection causes me a bit of uneasiness, as it seems like this software wouldn't be nearly as bulletproof as a physical switch. Also, levels of protection seem to vary from product to product. Being able to protect certain folders from reading and/or writing would be nice, but is the security trade-off worth it? Just how effective can this software protection be? Wouldn't a simple format be able to clean any drive with software protection? My drive must also be compatible with Windows XP, Vista, and 7, as well as Linux and Mac. What would be the best way forward for getting a well-sized (~8GB) flash drive with a strong write protection implementation, for little or no more than a regular drive? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • LDAP Structure: dc=example,dc=com vs o=Example

    - by PAS
    I am relatively new to LDAP, and have seen two types of examples of how to set up your structure. One method is to have the base being: dc=example,dc=com while other examples have the base being o=Example. Continuing along, you can have a group looking like: dn: cn=team,ou=Group,dc=example,dc=com cn: team objectClass: posixGroup memberUid: user1 memberUid: user2 ... or using the "O" style: dn: cn=team, o=Example objectClass: posixGroup memberUid: user1 memberUid: user2 My questions are: Are there any best practices that dictate using one method over the other? Is it just a matter of preference which style you use? Are there any advantages to using one over the other? Is one method the old style, and one the new-and-improved version? So far, I have gone with the dc=example,dc=com style. Any advice the community could give on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Performance of file operations on thousands of files on NTFS vs HFS, ext3, others

    - by peterjmag
    [Crossposted from my Ask HN post. Feel free to close it if the question's too broad for superuser.] This is something I've been curious about for years, but I've never found any good discussions on the topic. Of course, my Google-fu might just be failing me... I often deal with projects involving thousands of relatively small files. This means that I'm frequently performing operations on all of those files or a large subset of them—copying the project folder elsewhere, deleting a bunch of temporary files, etc. Of all the machines I've worked on over the years, I've noticed that NTFS handles these tasks consistently slower than HFS on a Mac or ext3/ext4 on a Linux box. However, as far as I can tell, the raw throughput isn't actually slower on NTFS (at least not significantly), but the delay between each individual file is just a tiny bit longer. That little delay really adds up for thousands of files. (Side note: From what I've read, this is one of the reasons git is such a pain on Windows, since it relies so heavily on the file system for its object database.) Granted, my evidence is merely anecdotal—I don't currently have any real performance numbers, but it's something that I'd love to test further (perhaps with a Mac dual-booting into Windows). Still, my geekiness insists that someone out there already has. Can anyone explain this, or perhaps point me in the right direction to research it further myself?

    Read the article

  • grep on Windows XP vs. Windows 7

    - by cschol
    I am using grep from Gnuwin32 on Windows. On Windows XP, the following grep -e "foo" NUL results in the following output grep: NUL: invalid argument On Windows 7, the same arguments result in no output at all. Why is the output different between Windows XP and Windows 7?

    Read the article

  • Buying a Laptop Battery - OEM vs. 3rd Party

    - by pygorex1
    Looking at a replacement 9-cell battery for my Dell 1525 I've noticed that the OEM batteries that Dell sells are up to 3x more expensive than batteries sold by a 3rd party vendor. Is the Dell premium worth it? What experiences have you had buying replacement batteries?

    Read the article

  • OSX pdf-kit vs Linux poppler or pdf/x

    - by Tahnoon Pasha
    I keep reading and hearing that the reason that there is no good pdf editing software for Linux is that the libraries are not as well developed. That is why there is no equivalent for Skim or Preview in Linux. I had a look a the pdf-kit documentation and the poppler documentation and they looked very similar to my admittedly non-technical view. Could someone explain to me why the OSX libraries (eg) are so much easier to write projects like Skim in than the linux ones. I'm not sure if the same applies to OSX projects to NVAlt, but it seems to be a common theme - I'd just like to understand what is behind the thesis that OSX is easier to code these projects in, and what would be involved in changing it. (I'm not disputing the value of Okular or Evince and the like, just noting that they don't have the richness of functionality of Skim, Preview or even things like Goodreader on the Ipad).

    Read the article

  • XAMPP vs WAMP security and other on Windows XP

    - by typoknig
    Not long ago I found WAMP and thought it was a God send because it had all the things I wanted/needed (Apache, PHP, MySQL, and phpMyAdmin) all built into one installer. One thing about WAMP has been making me mad is an error I get in phpMyAdmin about the advanced features not working. I have tried to fix that error long enough on that error for long enough. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2688385/problem-with-phpmyadmin-advanced-features I now read that most people prefer XAMPP over WAMP, but I am a bit concerned that XAMPP might have some extra security holes with Mercury and Perl, two thing that I don't really need or want right now. Are my security concerns justified or not? Is there any other reasons to go with XAMPP over WAMP or vice versa?

    Read the article

  • mdadm+zfs vs mdadm+lvm

    - by Alex
    This may be a naive question since I'm new to this and I cannot find any results about mdadm+zfs, but after some testing it seems it might work: The use case is a server with RAID6 for some data that is backed-up somewhat infrequently. I think I'm well served by any of ZFS or RAID6. Platform is Linux. Performance is secondary. So the two setups I am considering are: A RAID6 array plus regular LVM and ext4 A RAID6 array plus ZFS (without redundancy). Is this second option that I don't see discussed at all. Why ZFS+RAID6? It's mainly because the inability of ZFS to grow a raidz2 with new disks. You can replace disks with larger ones, I know, but not add another disk. You can accomplish 2-disk redundancy and ZFS disk growth using mdadm as the redundancy layer. Besides that main point (otherwise I could go directly to raidz2 without RAID under it), these are the pros-cons that I see for each option: ZFS has snapshots without preallocated space. LVM requires preallocation (might be no longer true). ZFS has checksumming (very interested in this) and compression (nice bonus). LVM has online filesystem growth (ZFS can do it offline with export/mdadm --grow/import). LVM has encryption (ZFS-on-Linux has not). This is the only major con of this combo I see. I guess I could go RAID6+LVM+ZFS... seems too heavy, or not? So, to close with a proper question: 1) Is there anything that inherently discourages or precludes RAID6+ZFS? Anyone has experience with a setup like this? 2) Are there possibilities for checksumming and compression that would make ZFS unnecessary (maintaining the possibility of filesystem growth)? Because the RAID6+LVM combo seems the sanctioned, tested way.

    Read the article

  • OpenJDK vs. Sun Java6 on Ubuntu

    - by Mark Renouf
    Due to past (bad) experience resulting from the GCJ stuff being provided by default on certain distributions, I've always traditionally installed the official Sun Java package on servers. On Ubuntu it's been easy but now OpenJDK is a preferred option and easier to install... I wonder: is there any reason not to use it instead? As far as I understand it's the open source version of the Sun JDK.

    Read the article

  • i5 vs. i7 processor dev laptop

    - by vector
    Greetings! I need to get a laptop for dev work ( mostly server side Java, NetBeans ) and wonder if anyone had a chance to use either the i5 or i7 based laptop? Is the i7 an overkill? ... or will the i5 handle it just fine? I'm thinking something from the HP line running Ubuntu. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Access Home Network Server via External Address (DSL vs Cable)

    - by Dominic Barnes
    For the last few months, I've been using a server on my home network for basic backups and hosting some small websites. Up until this past week, I've been using Comcast (cable) as an ISP and now that I've moved into an apartment, I'm using AT&T. (DSL) I've set up dynamic DNS and I can verify it works externally. However, I can't seem to access the public address from within the local network. Is there something DSL does differently from Cable that makes this frustration possible?

    Read the article

  • Access Home Network Server via External Address (DSL vs Cable)

    - by Dominic Barnes
    For the last few months, I've been using a server on my home network for basic backups and hosting some small websites. Up until this past week, I've been using Comcast (cable) as an ISP and now that I've moved into an apartment, I'm using AT&T. (DSL) I've set up dynamic DNS and I can verify it works externally. However, I can't seem to access the public address from within the local network. Is there something DSL does differently from Cable that makes this frustration possible?

    Read the article

  • CentOS vs. Ubuntu

    - by DLH
    I had a web server that ran Ubuntu, but the hard drive failed recently and everything was erased. I decided to try CentOS on the machine instead of Ubuntu, since it's based on Red Hat. That association meant a lot to me because Red Hat is a commercial server product and is officially supported by my server's manufacturer. However, after a few days I'm starting to miss Ubuntu. I have trouble finding some of the packages I want in the CentOS repositories, and the third-party packages I've tried have been a hassle to deal with. My question is, what are the advantages of using CentOS as a server over Ubuntu? CentOS is ostensibly designed for this purpose, but so far I would prefer to use a desktop edition of Ubuntu over CentOS. Are there any killer features of CentOS which make it a better server OS? Is there any reason I shouldn't switch back to Ubuntu Server or Xubuntu?

    Read the article

  • open_basedir vs sessions

    - by liquorvicar
    On a virtual hosting server I have the open_basedir set to .:/path/to/vhost/web:/tmp:/usr/share/pear for each virtual host. I have a client who's running WordPress and he's complaining about open_basedir errors thus: PHP WARNING: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/var/lib/php/session/sess_42k7jn3vjenj43g3njorrnrmf2) is not within the allowed path(s): (.:/path/to/vhost/web:/tmp:/usr/share/pear) So the PHP session save_path isn't included in open_basedir but sessions across all sites on the server seems to be working fine apart from in this intermittent instance. I thought that perhaps the default session handler ignored open_basedir and this warning was caused by WP accessing the session file directly. However from what I can see PHP 5.2.4 introduced open_basedir checking to the session.save_path config: http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php#5.2.4 (I am on PHP 5.2.13). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Home CAT6 wiring: CMR vs CMP?

    - by Eddie Parker
    I'm planning on wiring my house with CAT6 cable. I'm finding a large jump in price between CMR and CMP cabling, and I'm confused by what counts as a 'plenum' and what does not. As I'm wiring my house, I'm planning on going through interior (hollow) walls, and through the attic and crawlspace to get to the points I wish to wire. I will be going between floors at one point, which leads me to believe I need at least CMR, and obviously CMP wouldn't hurt either. I don't mind spending the extra money if I need to, but is it overkill going for CMP if the bulk of the wires are either going vertical, or through a crawlspace or attic?

    Read the article

  • Fiber Channel Loop vs Point to Point

    - by RandomInsano
    So, I'm playing with a couple of QLogic QLA2340s connected directly together. I've got options here to either have them act as a loop, or in point to point mode. What's the difference if I'm only going to have two machines connected together? Is point-to-point more efficient? The firmware has an option to prefer loop, then fall back to p2p. Anyone have any idea if there are performance benefits or drawbacks? It's pretty hard to find that information.

    Read the article

  • 50um vs. 62.5um fiber compatability

    - by murisonc
    I've heard that there are compatibility problems when using 50um fiber with some fiber converters. After some research I'm thinking this is a legacy issue when using slower devices (100 Base FX) that used LEDs. I was told that the fiber converters are made for a certain size of fiber core and wont work with 50um fiber. Am I right in thinking this is just a corporate knowledge thing that is outdated when using 1000 Base SX converters (which should be using lasers instead of LEDs)?

    Read the article

  • LVM2 vs MDADM performance

    - by archer
    I've used MDADM + LVM2 on many boxes for quite a while. MDADM was serving for both RAID0 and RAID1 arrays, while LVM2 where used for logical volumes on top of MDADM. Recently I've found that LVM2 could be used w/o MDADM (thus minus one layer, as the result - less overhead) for both mirroring and stripping. However, some guys claims that READ PERFORMANCE on LVM2 for mirrored array is not that fast as for LVM2 (linear) on top of MDADM (RAID1) as LVM2 does not read from 2+ devices at a time, but use 2nd and higher devices in case of 1st device failure. MDADM reads from 2 devices at a time (even in mirrored mode). Who could confirm that?

    Read the article

  • lighttpd VS Apache

    - by Tristan
    Hi, could you pelase tell me what's the difference (i never heard of lighttpd before) ? pro / cons ? and what would you pick for a website who have to deal with a lot of querys (like 20,000 min per day) ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • VMWare vmfs vs NFS datastore with vmdk?

    - by CarpeNoctem
    I want to add a new harddisk to an existing VM and want the best performance possible. The new hard disk will exist on an NFS datastore. Currently I did the following: Created new vmdk on NFS datastore Created new lvm partition using fdisk Create new physical volume, volume group, and logical volume (2TB) Created ext3 partition on logical volume Is there a better way to do this? Should I be doing some vmware-ish file system instead?

    Read the article

  • Puppet: array in parameterized classes VS using resources

    - by Luke404
    I have some use cases where I want to define multiple similar resources that should end up in a single file (via a template). As an example I'm trying to write a puppet module that will let me manage the mapping between MAC addresses and network interface names (writing udev's persistent-net-rules file from puppet), but there are also many other similar usage cases. I searched around and found that it could be done with the new parameterised classes syntax: if implemented that way it should end up being used like this: node { "myserver.example.com": class { "network::iftab": interfaces => { "eth0" => { "mac" => "ab:cd:ef:98:76:54" } "eth1" => { "mac" => "98:76:de:ad:be:ef" } } } } Not too bad, I agree, but it would rapidly explode when you manage more complex stuff (think network configurations like in this module or any other multiple-complex-resources-in-a-single-config-file stuff). In a similar question on SF someone suggested using Pienaar's puppet-concat module but I doubt it could get any better than parameterised classes. What would be really cool and clean in the configuration definition would be something like the included host type, it's usage is simple, pretty and clean and naturally maps to multiple resources that will end up being configured in a single place. Transposed to my example it would be like: node { "myserver.example.com": interface { "eth0": "mac" => "ab:cd:ef:98:76:54", "foo" => "bar", "asd" => "lol", "eth1": "mac" => "98:76:de:ad:be:ef", "foo" => "rab", "asd" => "olo", } } ...that looks much better to my eyes, even with 3x options to each resource. Should I really be passing arrays to parameterised classes, or there is a better way to do this kind of stuff? Is there some accepted consensus in the puppet [users|developers] community? By the way, I'm referring to the latest stable release of the 2.7 branch and I am not interested in compatibility with older versions.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >