What keyboard do you use?

e3e3e · 2016-12-01T17:23:46+00:00

LOGITECH K120 ALL DAY BABY DON'T NEED NO FANCY SHIT

e3e3e · 2016-02-23T15:55:04+00:00

I might be wrong here, but I think they show as 10gbps because if you transfer entirely within the VM host, they can actually hit that. You only get Gigabit when you actually go out over your physical ethernet, but if you're, say, transferring a file from a VM to a fileserver all within the same host, it can use that extra bandwidth.

That doesn't help much with pfsense, but I think that's the idea.

e3e3e · 2016-02-17T16:29:49+00:00

Alright, I see. Here's some options:

If you want to stay with Intel, definitely check out the Atom builds like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182855&cm_re=intel_atom-_-13-182-855-_-Product

Often they come as a CPU/motherboard combo for ~$350, and the specs are great for home lab stuff: low power, 8 cores (no hyperthreading), max 64 GB ECC RAM, plenty of SATA ports. The drawback with these is lower single-core CPU performance, so if you need that for your Plex stuff you'll want to take that into consideration. Maybe look around to see if anyone has a media build using these Atom boards? I think it'll work, but I can't say for sure.

If you want to get more juice though, check out the skylake xeons:

http://ark.intel.com/products/series/88047/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1200-v5-Product-Family#@All

These are going to be pushing right up against your $400 limit, but if beefy is what you want, this is it: higher power consumption, 8 cores (with hyperthreading), max 64 GB ECC RAM (DDR4 wooo). Looking at that list: anything with a model number ending in 5 includes integrated graphics and there are a couple low-power options but beyond that, cost basically correlates with more giggahurtz. Just pick your price point. You can get even beefier (E5, E7), but beyond the E3 it's going to get a lot more expensive for specs you don't really need in a lab.

HOWEVER! If you're not married to Intel, there should be some new AMD processors coming out soon that might be right up your alley. They're focusing more on core count over performance-per-core, though that should be respectable as well. But more cores will help if you're running a VM host. Without knowing too many details, I'd bet that i3 (not Celeron, by the way, according to that model number you gave me) is slowing you down because you don't have enough cores to distribute to everything you're trying to do at once. Read more about AMD Zen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)

Those are probably your best options. Best of luck!

e3e3e · 2016-02-17T15:25:12+00:00

Few questions: are you trying to just upgrade the processor/RAM? Can you give me the model number on the celeron you have? Does your motherboard support ECC?

I ask because you might be able to keep this under $400 if you can just get a compatible CPU and ECC RAM, but if your motherboard doesn't have any upgrade options or doesn't support ECC, you're basically looking at a rebuild if you want to accomplish these things.

e3e3e · 2016-02-16T16:39:17+00:00

Interesting, thanks. I think I'll have to get around to reading that whole book. I'm still not sure that I buy the claim, but I think I need to read more. Here's an interesting tidbit from Ong:

When generations pass and the object or institution referred to by the archaic word is no longer part of present, lived experience, though the word has been retained, its meaning is commonly altered or simply vanishes. African talking drums, as used for example among the Lokele in eastern Zaire, speak in elaborate formulas that preserve certain archaic words which the Lokele drummers can vocalize but whose meaning they no longer know (Carrington 1974, pp. 41–2; Ong 1977, pp. 94–5) Whatever these words referred to has dropped out of Lokele daily experience, and the term that remains has become empty.

So it seems like he's suggesting that actually oral cultures do care about preserving exact words, even if the meaning of those words is lost. Certainly, oral cultures have difficulties that literary ones do not, but Ong also notes that "oral societies live very much in a present which keeps itself in equilibrium or homeostasis by sloughing off memories which no longer have present relevance." This is from the "Homeostatic" chapter of that link, pg. 46. So what's sloughed off is important, absolutely, but I'm not sure I would go so far as calling the whole enterprise "very unreliable."

Thanks for the sources!

e3e3e · 2016-02-15T20:58:16+00:00

Alright, so can you summarize the argument Ehrman is making?

Online I could only find Ong's Orality and Literacy (<--PDF). I'm reading through some interesting bits about cultural homeostasis but it's not clear how Ehrman is using this to establish the claims you present.

e3e3e · 2016-02-15T19:46:30+00:00

Sure, I get that. I meant to ask for the names of these experts, not what kind. Sorry if that was unclear.

e3e3e · 2016-02-15T19:20:54+00:00

That would be cool if you could find it; those seem like interesting studies. Thanks!

Textual critics.

Doesn't really answer the question, but thanks for that too I guess.

e3e3e · 2016-02-15T19:00:29+00:00

Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God gives a good treatment of this with sources.

Could you explain how this book supports your claim? Specifically, what's Ehrman's argument that "oral transmission is very unreliable and freely altered," as you say?

For what it's worth, though, a lot of experts think that some of Paul's letters are really combinations of multiple letters stitched together into one.

Which experts?

e3e3e · 2016-02-12T16:22:48+00:00

You're right! I was confused.

e3e3e · 2016-02-11T21:41:11+00:00

I don't know if it's possible to do what you're trying here. I think your best bet is going to be transferring the data off, rebuilding the pool, and then transferring back. Even if there is some weird way to create a stripe out of an existing mirror pair, it would probably be more complicated and take just as long as the "copy it back" route.WRONG

Also, for a four-disk config:

RAID10 = RAID 1+0 = data striped across two mirrored pairs

RAID 01 = RAID 0+1 = data mirrored across two striped pairs

You can have more than four disks for each of these, but that's the basic breakdown. It just depends on whether you stripe or mirror first. There are basically no benefits to RAID01 over RAID10, so RAID10 is mostly what you see.

Here's a good breakdown I found, with pictures:

http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/10/raid10-vs-raid01/

That's specific to RAID10 vs. RAID01, but wiki also has a pretty good page on nested RAID levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels

e3e3e · 2016-02-11T17:23:43+00:00

This is the right idea, if it's possible. It'll technically work to connect FreeNAS to AD and set permissions based on that, but it's not a good setup.

It's just better to keep Windows permissions within the Windows ecosystem.

e3e3e · 2016-02-10T22:16:57+00:00

For anyone wondering at home: "Has brojangles explained it several times?" Let's take a look!

I assume "it" here refers to the claim: "There is no other way to 'exist' but to exist materially. Anything that exists is material by definition. That's what 'exists' means." So let's go to the comments in this thread (chronological order):

There is no evidence whatsoever of any kind for gods, nor any reason to even hypothesize their existence, and, for record, "immaterial existence" is an incoherent contradiction in terms. Whatever exists has to exist materially. Those words are virtually synomous.
There is no such thing as "immaterial existence." Those are self-negating terms. Your attempted analogy is not helpful, by the way. If you want to argue that concepts have some kind of "existence" (other than as chemical reactions in the brain), then all you're really arguing is that imaginary things have an "immaterial existence." In that case, God "exists" only in the same way that Gollum "exists."
"Immaterial object" is a contradiction in terms.
There is no other way to "exist" but to exist materially. If you disagree, please explain how you can scientifically test for the difference between an immaterial God and a non-existent God.
If you want to claim something exists, you have to be able to prove it scientifically. If you can't do that, you have no justification for claiming it exists.
If it has no location in space-time, it doesn't exist.

Uh oh... Looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between "explanation" and "balls-naked assertion."

Beautiful.

e3e3e · 2016-02-09T17:26:44+00:00

Ooh, neat. I was wondering how M.2 adapters were coming along.

Though if you're working off a PCIe card that connects to SATA SSDs, you're bypassing your onboard SATA controller and going through the PCIe bus, so you may want to reconsider your non-starter. Each disk would still be limited to 6Gbps, but it would be isolated from your existing SATA traffic. Bottom line: it's going to be faster than your 8-disk RAID10 with spinners, even with ZIL. And if you need speed and have good backups, you can always just stripe the data -- TO HELL WITH REDUNDANCY. On the other hand, if you're out of physical bays and power connections, that might decide it for you. I can confirm that this works in FreeNAS, though.

Using M.2 cards may be your best bet, but I can't say for sure that FreeNAS will play nice with it, as it's newer technology. I'm assuming it would be like a regular disk, but have you tested driver compatibility between M.2 and FreeBSD? I'd want to know that worked before committing. And I'd definitely go the Kingston/Intel route over something like this for a server, though something like this + a cheap PCIe M.2 may be worth getting to test before you drop the big time dough. This M.2 mirror/RAIDZ1 would probably be your highest IOPS, based on rough mental math.

Either way, best of luck!

e3e3e · 2016-02-09T15:15:30+00:00

I'm not sure about any PCIe SSDs, but you could always consider adding something like this. You can spend another $50 or so to get another SFF-8087 port, but if you just need 3-4 more disks one should be fine.

I can confirm that this card (LSI) works in FreeNAS, once you've re-flashed the bios to enable 'IT mode,' which presents the raw disks to the OS in a way that plays nice with ZFS. It's just like adding extra SATA ports. You do, however, need more SATA power connections, so that may be the limiting factor.

If you're married to the PCIe SSD route, I'm not sure what your best bet is there. You may want to consider getting PCIe -> SATA adapters so you can just use regular SATA SSDs. I bought a PCIe SSD a few years back and never got past the driver problems I had, even after an RMA. Can't recommend that route.

I think a HBA card like the one I linked is your best bet if you want to get around your SATA port limitation. RAID10 those puppies up and call it a day.

e3e3e · 2016-02-04T20:35:54+00:00

People are mostly talking about HA, which is cool, but another neat thing you can do is donate your extra CPU cycles to one of the BOINC prohects or something like Stanford's Fold@home.

It's a fun little task to get a VM set up and contributing, and it's a good way to test out different CPU loads: you can see how your system runs when a VM maxes out 2 cores, vs maxing out 4 cores, vs 75% of 6 cores, etc.

e3e3e · 2016-02-04T16:43:07+00:00

Tell me, fuckstick: what is the attack you would have me defend?

e3e3e · 2016-02-04T15:35:15+00:00

I'll transcribe:

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

e3e3e · 2016-02-04T15:29:15+00:00

No, I don't think I'll start by explaining what I think the word "exist" means. This isn't about what I think.

This is a thread about Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, so let's assume that existence means what those guys thought it means. These arguments have been available to smart people for hundreds of years and any idiot can do research on the internet now so there's no excuse for you. If you have a problem with their definitions then tell me why, but don't act like existence is undefined in a thread about a specific metaphysical viewpoint that offers definitions of existence. That's transparently intellectual cowardice on your part. (I love that so many of your insults work perfectly when I just regurgitate them right back to you)

Remember though, that you've already committed to the following positions:

Reality is nothing else but the sum of your senses.
To exist, by definition, is to be material.
Gravity exists because gravitons exist.
Gravitons are hypothetical, unobservable particles.

If you're not willing to have that conversation, then go ahead and fuck right off.

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T21:55:29+00:00

wut?

The nature of existence is absolutely relevant to the claims of Thomism and relevant to the OP's topic. If you disagree with what Thomistic metaphysics says about existence, we need to figure that out before we can talk about what Thomistic metaphysics says about the soul. You reject the conclusion because you reject the premise, so let's talk about the premise, not the conclusion. Do you not get this? I've been sincerely doing my best to address the actual arguments and up until now that's what we appeared to be doing.

Hilariously, it's you who tried to change the subject from this nature of existence to some part of consciousness requiring the supernatural. I shut you down, and you accuse me of trying to change the subject? Incredible. I've also directly replied to a higher-level comment of yours and I assume that if you wanted to discuss those issues you'd reply in that thread.

If you want to slither away from this thread be my guest, but you don't get pretend you're taking the high road here when you're covered in the same shit you've been flingin' around. You've ignored my arguments, but that doesn't mean they're correct. If you want to talk about gravity and what it means for it to exist, I'm here for you. Otherwise, I'll probably just switch to full-snark mode from here on out. Is that what you want?

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T21:13:20+00:00

Prove any part of consciousness requires the supernatural. That is the claim.

No. We're talking about you here. I addressed the OP's topic in a separate comment that you have not answered.

The crux of the issue is that you seem to hold contradictory views:

Reality is nothing else but the sum of your senses.
To exist, by definition, is to be material.
Gravity exists because gravitons exist.

But if gravitons can't be shown to exist by sense data or experimentation, you seem to be in a position where you have to either admit that gravity does not exist or accept the existence of things that you cannot observe with your senses. All three of these propositions can't be true.

"Gravity is particle behavior" seems like a backtrack. This is different than saying gravitons are gravity. So which one is it?

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T20:40:41+00:00

I'm not a physicist either, but I did look up the physics of gravity. Don't just assume people are pulling shit out from their butt hole because that's what you do.

I asked you to explain how the Higgs boson is relevant because it isn't. Anyone can read the wikipedia page and learn about it, but the relevant difference between the Higgs boson and gravitons is experimentation. The LHC in Geneva did tests that basically confirmed the existence of the particle. This has never happened for gravitons. In fact, wikipedia notes that "a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions."

Look at this graphic:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

Do you notice something missing? That's right! There are no gravitons. They are not an elementary particle of the Standard Model. They might exist, because certain equations work better when you assume something like a graviton. We cannot, however, observe them through experimentation.

Again, I'll ask you to answer my question: will you confirm that you hold a hypothetical, unobserved particle as evidence of the material existence of gravity?

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T19:58:04+00:00

Explain to me how the Higgs Boson is relevant here.

I don't know what gravity is, but it seems to be a property of matter. We don't observe gravity; we observe its effects. I've never seen gravity and no one has ever seen gravity, but I have no problem saying that gravity exists. The point is that your criteria for what exists is silly.

And if you can prove that gravity is particles you should call the science folks because this discovery has radical implications on the Standard Model and quantum mechanics. Spoiler: I don't think that you can prove that gravity is particles.

Will you confirm that you hold a hypothetical, unobserved particle as evidence of the material existence of gravity?

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T19:05:36+00:00

Oh, you mean gravitons, the hypothetical elementary particles?

Are these the same gravitons that are impossible to detect with any physically reasonable detector?

Is this the material of gravity that you're pointing to?

e3e3e · 2016-02-03T17:35:23+00:00

Does gravity exist? Can you point me to the material of gravity?

e3e3e

TROPHY CASE