  TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4 | money money money money..... MONEY! If they have the cash to burn on crap like this.... They must charge their customers an arm and a leg. I have Cox and we have our TV and Internet for about $100 I think. Not too bad for digital cable and WWW.
--
And if you go, furious angels will bring you back to me. | |
|
 | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! everyone also wants to be the next google when it comes to success from ad profits. google nearly prints its money somedays it seems like.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by TCub:If they have the cash to burn on crap like this.... They must charge their customers an arm and a leg. I have Cox and we have our TV and Internet for about $100 I think. Not too bad for digital cable and WWW. A 500 terabyte server farm costs next to nothing for even a medium size business. For Comcast the cost is inconsequential and would be easily dwarfed by the extra revenue they would get from the higher prices targeted ads would garner.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4 | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! Whoah! You changed your avatar.
Anyway. I was considering the entire cost. I sure a server wouldn't be that much but then they have to come up with the idea, create some funky software to monitor EVERY single person watching TV with comcast. Analyse the data, etc etc.
But like Kearnstd said, they're trying to do the Google thing and make a shit ton of money off ad's. So if it works out for them then all this stuff will just pay for itself then. | |
|
| | |  DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! Ya but would/could a single server have that much capasity?
in windows 64bit the largest logical drive you can have is 7.5TB so 7.5*26(letteres in the alphabet) 195TB
not lets assume not windows
500TB=minimum 334 1.5TB harddrives (but of course add redundancy so) 336 drives if one large array is even possible
It would be easy to see its possible but it would take some planning as to how to orgenize and various other aspects and possibly a need for ZFS
you could actually fit the drives all in one 48U Rack with space to spare
it would be cool to get more details as to how they set it up(although I know how I would) | |
|
| | | | TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4 | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! Actually ya, now that you mention it I'm curious as to what hardware they're using. That's pretty crazy!
I wonder if this is going to bring up any privacy issues? I would guess it won't because google does a similar thing with your searches. Bringing up ad's specific to what you search for or write in a website or blog.
Still all it takes is one person whoes outraged to start a lawsuit. | |
|
| | | | |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by TCub:Actually ya, now that you mention it I'm curious as to what hardware they're using. That's pretty crazy! I wonder if this is going to bring up any privacy issues? I would guess it won't because google does a similar thing with your searches. Bringing up ad's specific to what you search for or write in a website or blog. Still all it takes is one person whoes outraged to start a lawsuit. See my post - it's nothing special: multiple servers using a shared file system (probably StorNext) over FC.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! If I were building it I'd do somthing allong the following
If absolutely insane speed is needed then
HP SAS MSA's on a 10G local net (maybe faster) and that would just be to get the capasity then add however many servers that are needed to handle the processing and load ZFS so I could make the partitions as big as I want | |
|
| | | | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by DarkLogix:If I were building it I'd do somthing allong the following If absolutely insane speed is needed then HP SAS MSA's on a 10G local net (maybe faster) and that would just be to get the capasity then add however many servers that are needed to handle the processing and load ZFS so I could make the partitions as big as I want MSA is a joke, seriously, it's a lot slower even than my system here. Also when you need HPC performance you have to forget any eth layer.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | | | | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! well I guess I'd add a new step 1
1. find some good proformance data | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | their goes a waste of money  | |
|
| | | | | jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | Come on - what hardware? They're going to use an EMC SAN or the like... | |
|
| | | | | | said by DarkLogix:Ya but would/could a single server have that much capasity? in windows 64bit the largest logical drive you can have is 7.5TB so 7.5*26(letteres in the alphabet) 195TB not lets assume not windows 500TB=minimum 334 1.5TB harddrives (but of course add redundancy so) 336 drives if one large array is even possible It would be easy to see its possible but it would take some planning as to how to orgenize and various other aspects and possibly a need for ZFS you could actually fit the drives all in one 48U Rack with space to spare it would be cool to get more details as to how they set it up(although I know how I would) They won't be using Windows (but knowing cable companies, I wouldn't doubt they'd try).
Like you said, this is a job for a UNIX variant and ZFS (most likely Solaris). ZFS is as scalable as you want it to be. | |
|
| | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by KodiacZiller:said by DarkLogix:Ya but would/could a single server have that much capasity? in windows 64bit the largest logical drive you can have is 7.5TB so 7.5*26(letteres in the alphabet) 195TB not lets assume not windows 500TB=minimum 334 1.5TB harddrives (but of course add redundancy so) 336 drives if one large array is even possible It would be easy to see its possible but it would take some planning as to how to orgenize and various other aspects and possibly a need for ZFS you could actually fit the drives all in one 48U Rack with space to spare it would be cool to get more details as to how they set it up(although I know how I would) They won't be using Windows (but knowing cable companies, I wouldn't doubt they'd try). Like you said, this is a job for a UNIX variant and ZFS (most likely Solaris). ZFS is as scalable as you want it to be. If you go down the SAN way I doubt this level of number-crunching (analyzing the habits of ~16M subs) can be done without using some sort of shared FS.
--
said by bicker:Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. | |
|
| | | | | | There is no such limit in Windows XP on logical drive size limitations. Window XP supports partitioning drives up to 18 exabytes in size.
I doubt this level will be reached in the next ten years.
This is an OLD document, but proves my point:
»support.microsoft.com/kb/100108
First, NTFS has greatly increased the size of files and volumes, so that they can now be up to 2^64 bytes (16 exabytes or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes). NTFS has also returned to the FAT concept of clusters in order to avoid HPFS problem of a fixed sector size. This was done because Windows NT is a portable operating system and different disk technology is likely to be encountered at some point. Therefore, 512 bytes per sector was viewed as having a large possibility of not always being a good fit for the allocation. This was accomplished by allowing the cluster to be defined as multiples of the hardware's natural allocation size. Finally, in NTFS all filenames are Unicode based, and 8.3 filenames are kept along with long filenames.
You are forgetting that there are other variables for NTFS that determine the maximum partition size:
- BIOS limits
- Controller limitations
- Cluster Size
- Maximum clusters per partition
- NTFS Revision
NTFS 3.1 and newer (Windows XP, 20003 and up) support mount points just like Unix. There is no practical limit to the number of mount points. No extra drive letters required.
The REAL "logical" NTFS volume size limit in Windows XP is 256TB with a cluster size of 64K. Using the more common 4K cluster size the maximum limit is 16TB. More than is needed for most any home user. You can always create multiple mount points on a single drive letter to vastly increase the total addressable space on single computer. There are other file system solutions for Windows that do not have these limits.
And finally, no one uses Windows XP as a server environment anyway so this statement is just silly.
Cluster size Maximum NTFS Volume Size (bytes RAW)
512 2,199,023,255,040 (2TB)
1,024 4,398,046,510,080 (4TB)
2,048 8,796,093,020,160 (8TB)
4,096 17,592,186,040,320 (16TB)
8,192 35,184,372,080,640 (32TB)
16,384 70,368,744,161,280 (64TB)
32,768 140,737,488,322,560 (128TB)
65,536 281,474,976,645,120 (256TB) | |
|
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by DarkLogix:in windows 64bit the largest logical drive you can have is 7.5TB so 7.5*26(letteres in the alphabet) 195TB not lets assume not windows 500TB=minimum 334 1.5TB harddrives (but of course add redundancy so) 336 drives if one large array is even possible Windows NTFS can support 2^32 clusters. At the default cluster size of 4KB, that translates to 16terabytes. Using teh max size of 64kb/cluster, the size goes up to 256TB.
Using other file systems, Windows can theoretically address up to 18exabytes (that's 1000 petabytes or 1,000,000 terabytes).
Windows, just like *nix servers, also aren't limited to just 26 drive letters. You aren't going to put 500TB as a single volume. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | (To the original anonymous poster with comments about 7.5Gbyte drives under windows.)
a) Your numbers on the largest logical drive possible in Windows are way off.
b) You can mount drives any number of ways, including off folders, etc. You are not limited to 26 letters.
c) Nobody would organize a VLDB database around a collection of drives, a through z. The storage hierarchy in these very large databases is much more complex and layered.
d) Here's an example of a 1.1 petabyte database running on a Windows platform:
The Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System, (Pan-STARRS) is the example offered by Microsoft when it comes to one of the world's largest databases, with SQL Server 2008 at its infrastructure. The Redmond company indicated that the Pan-STARRS architects are building a massive 1.1 petabytes (quadrillion bytes) of disk storage for the celestial imagery which would be provided by four telescopes via 1.4-gigapixel resolution digital cameras. At this point in time, with just a single functioning telescope, Pan-STARRS is producing 1.4 terabytes of imagery each night.
“There are only a handful of databases that large in the world,” revealed Ted Kummert, corporate vice president of the Data and Storage Platform Division at Microsoft.
(»news.softpedia.com/news/Microsof···88.shtml) | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Odds are they would use some sort of NAS setup that multiple servers access. 500TB is not that big of a deal. Take this server at work for example:
# df -Hl
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 30G 5.1G 24G 18% /
tmpfs 2.1G 0 2.1G 0% /lib/init/rw
udev 11M 82k 11M 1% /dev
tmpfs 2.1G 0 2.1G 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda2 7.9G 135M 7.4G 2% /tmp
/dev/sdb1 17T 7.0T 9.3T 44% /vol/raid3052/1
/dev/sdb2 17T 7.2T 9.1T 45% /vol/raid3052/2
/dev/sde1 17T 141M 17T 1% /vol/raid3057/1
/dev/sde2 17T 13T 4.1T 75% /vol/raid3057/2
/dev/sdd1 17T 141M 17T 1% /vol/raid3058/1
/dev/sdd2 17T 141M 17T 1% /vol/raid3058/2
/dev/sdc1 17T 141M 17T 1% /vol/raid3059/1
/dev/sdc2 17T 141M 17T 1% /vol/raid3059/2
That is 128TB all hooked up to a single machine. It is a total of 16U (1x4U server and 3x4U boxes with just drives in them) each with 24x1.5 TB drives in them in raid6.
Of course this is just used for backups as for any type of data-base like driven stuff you would want to use much higher performance hardware. Of course this 128TB of storage probably only cost less than 20k. I did not order the hardware so I am not sure on the exact cost.
--
Chugging along on 2x 6016/768k DSL Extreme DSL lines and one 6016/768 ATT DSL DIrect line as well as one 16mb/2mb Charter cable line for a combined total of just over 32 meg download and 3 meg up (after overhead). yay! | |
|
| | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by Linklist:said by TCub:If they have the cash to burn on crap like this.... They must charge their customers an arm and a leg. I have Cox and we have our TV and Internet for about $100 I think. Not too bad for digital cable and WWW. A 500 terabyte server farm costs next to nothing for even a medium size business. What an ignorant BS - you obviously don't have a clue about HPC storage pricing otherwise you wouldn't call a $500k starter price tag nothing (and besides the iron you'll need the shared fs, the collaboration environment, the data processing apps etc).
FYI: when I bought a 20TB but 1.5GB/s rated system ~18 months ago I paid over $200k - and I got a bargain.
For Comcast the cost is inconsequential and would be easily dwarfed by the extra revenue they would get from the higher prices targeted ads would garner.
Assuming they can fool people into consent - otherwise they will get SUED and handed over their corporate stupid asses for stealing and selling private information.
Yes, my browsing habits, search info etc are MY information thus it's MY PROPERTY - and no parasite monopolies like Comcast can get away with it, mwhahaha.
--
said by bicker:Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. | |
|
| | | | said by Linklist:said by TCub:If they have the cash to burn on crap like this.... They must charge their customers an arm and a leg. I have Cox and we have our TV and Internet for about $100 I think. Not too bad for digital cable and WWW. A 500 terabyte server farm costs next to nothing for even a medium size business. For Comcast the cost is inconsequential and would be easily dwarfed by the extra revenue they would get from the higher prices targeted ads would garner. Depends on what type of storage. I've worked on everything from small arrays to large EMC Symmetrix SANs. We paid over $100,000 for a 15TB SAN array the other day. This was the low end. The high end gets into the millions of dollars.
If you're using cheap drives in a cheap array it can be cheap. But if you're using enterprise class storage it can get pricey. | |
|
| | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by fifty nine:said by Linklist:said by TCub:If they have the cash to burn on crap like this.... They must charge their customers an arm and a leg. I have Cox and we have our TV and Internet for about $100 I think. Not too bad for digital cable and WWW. A 500 terabyte server farm costs next to nothing for even a medium size business. For Comcast the cost is inconsequential and would be easily dwarfed by the extra revenue they would get from the higher prices targeted ads would garner. Depends on what type of storage. I've worked on everything from small arrays to large EMC Symmetrix SANs. We paid over $100,000 for a 15TB SAN array the other day. This was the low end. The high end gets into the millions of dollars. If you're using cheap drives in a cheap array it can be cheap. But if you're using enterprise class storage it can get pricey. Exactly and beyond the storage size and bandwidth your shared fs licenses ($3-4k per seat) can run into tens of thousands of dollars, depending on your server/access configuration, all this on top of your FC or Infiniband hw costs.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by kamm:Exactly and beyond the storage size and bandwidth your shared fs licenses ($3-4k per seat) can run into tens of thousands of dollars, depending on your server/access configuration, all this on top of your FC or Infiniband hw costs. What kind of array did you buy for 200k btw?
We bought a 3Par S400. Nice price, but one of the system controllers had RAM that failed twice. No problems since though. | |
|
| | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! Mine is from here: »www.datadirectnet.com/
I put two Storage Server 2k3 R2 w/ multi-Gb eth on front of it via 4 gig FC, to do FC->LAN and FS/metadata and the rest of the host ports connected to a 16-port 4 gig switch.
What FS are you guys using?
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by kamm:What FS are you guys using? Filesystems?
For the Linux boxes it's LVM with ReiserFS. For Solaris we're using vxvm/vxfs. | |
|
| | | | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by fifty nine:said by kamm:What FS are you guys using? Filesystems? For the Linux boxes it's LVM with ReiserFS. For Solaris we're using vxvm/vxfs. Ahh so you're not running shared FS. That's the nice and easy way of living. 
BTW Reiser got 15 to life last year, you know that, right?
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by kamm:said by fifty nine:said by kamm:What FS are you guys using? Filesystems? For the Linux boxes it's LVM with ReiserFS. For Solaris we're using vxvm/vxfs. Ahh so you're not running shared FS. That's the nice and easy way of living. BTW Reiser got 15 to life last year, you know that, right? Yeah I know. 
I used to work at a much larger DC where we had Veritas Cluster filesystem, RAC and the like. They had a couple hundred TB of storage. This was a financial company.
Now I'm at a different place that deals primarily in media. It's quite a different environment. A lot of our storage is for video content, including HD streaming and on-demand for cable companies.
Completely different needs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: money money money money..... MONEY! said by fifty nine:Yeah I know. I used to work at a much larger DC where we had Veritas Cluster filesystem, RAC and the like. They had a couple hundred TB of storage. This was a financial company. Now I'm at a different place that deals primarily in media. It's quite a different environment. A lot of our storage is for video content, including HD streaming and on-demand for cable companies. Completely different needs. Not necessarily: we deal with high-res media as well, scientific stuff but the main SAN users are usually the 3d/fx guys.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | |
|
| | | Re: is this only I imagine they could hit the analog subscribers with this by injecting ads at remote head ends in different parts of town. They could target digital subscribers to the individual users by streaming the adds to their setup box. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by ArrayList:for digital cable subscribers? i dont see how this will work for non digital subs Don't expect the cablecos to allow folks to stay on analog for long after the digital switchover. | |
|
| |  ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
·Comcast
| Re: is this only until digital cable is compatible with ota dtv recievers or they let people use their bulky digital receivers i will never consider going with digital cable again. i tried it for free for 9 months on comcast and just despised the digital box/interface. it felt too much like something out of a bad 80's show about what the future would be like. | |
|
| | | | | Re: is this only said by ArrayList:until digital cable is compatible with ota dtv recievers or they let people use their bulky digital receivers i will never consider going with digital cable again. i tried it for free for 9 months on comcast and just despised the digital box/interface. it felt too much like something out of a bad 80's show about what the future would be like. That's why they have the DTAs now. It's really small, no guide data but it receives all the channels.
Also new TVs are digital cable ready meaning they can view channels broadcast in unencrypted QAM without a box (ClearQAM). | |
|
|  Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | It won't work on me either. I returned my digital box, downgraded to limited basic and plugged the cable directly into my TV with Clear QAM tuner.
--
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented worker is like calling a crack dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  My DVR will be targeted for ads I will never see
Will this result, eventually, in the hardware DVRs fast forward capability being disabled in the software? And will the software based network DVR(being tested at TWC for example) prohibit fast forwarding thru commercials?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Thank God for Tivo-HD and it's one way cableCARD tuner They won't be getting any usuable data from me.  | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
| | These fokking cable company scum Charging $90 - $120 per month for commodity service, and then sticking it to you with illegally obtained monitoring data so they can jam commericials back in your face (that you pay through the a$$ for).
No cable in my house. Thank you OTA Digital TV. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: These fokking cable company scum said by TwoCpus4me:sticking it to you with illegally obtained monitoring data so they can jam commericials back in your face It is NOT against the law to collect that data - at least not yet. There is maybe an FTC ruling that they would have to NOTIFY the customer that they are doing it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: These fokking cable company scum said by Linklist:said by TwoCpus4me:sticking it to you with illegally obtained monitoring data so they can jam commericials back in your face It is NOT against the law to collect that data - at least not yet. There is maybe an FTC ruling that they would have to NOTIFY the customer that they are doing it. Stop spreading BS, please - it IS because the right to privacy trumps corporate greed.
The fact that our completely broken government, corrupt corporate worms like Martin@FCC does not enforce anything nor give a flying frog about us does not make it legal for cablecorpses to sell MY property (my information, that is.)
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| The problem is... The tv viewer habits, are moving from addressable interactiv cable boxes to, well... bittorrent. Still trackbable, but can't exactly target commercials to these people.. the ripping from tv edits out the commercials, even something as problematic as SNL. | |
|
| | Where are the privacy whackos? So why are they not freaking out over this? This is really not that much different than web adds that are served to you after looking at your surfing habits.
And yes I used the term whacko. It's for the ones that somehow think that a 3rd party can find every intimate detail about you because they they know that 10.234.3.4 likes to search for hard drives and now they send Segate adds to them instead of Smiling Bob adds.
IF I have to look at adds somewhere I would at least prefer they be for something that I might be interested in buying. Then again if you use ad block software it's a moot point. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | 500TB doesn't sound like very much I have over 20TB at home just for me. 500TB seems like a tiny amount for that many people. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | Or... do away with ads altogether--I ignore ads/commercials entirely anyway (doesn't everyone? ...OK, almost everyone). Remember what cable used to be? All "premium" channels with no "ads". Now they're not even apologetic about throwing in commercial time, even to the point of totally overlaying content... just one reason why I'll never pay for the "privilege" of watching channels that contain commercials.
Commercials... coming to a billboard TV near you. Ads... making everything you buy cost more (yet having little effect on actual purchasing decisions). | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | annoying Its annoying enough now when Comcast cuts in the regional / local ads over the top of the normal, national ads.. as a fan of commercials (how they're made, the gimmicks used, and so on.. ) I find it quite annoying that some lame local carpet Co. ad is stepping on the ad that SOME COMPANY PAID FOR AND IS OF BETTER MERIT (ARTISTICALLY)
I say blah to it all. | |
|
| | | Re: annoying Get satellite. I only see local commercials on the local channels. There were so many stupid local and Cox commercials it was driving me crazy. | |
|
| | Iponit
join:2009-01-12
Parker, CO | Re: annoying You can't be serious. Echostar(DishNetwork) has been sending your data to Google for 2 years now for this very purpose. Every time you hit a button on your remote, that key press is recorded. They know you turn the channel whenever person X comes on tv. They know you only watch an 'adult' show for 4.8 minutes.
Comcast isn't talking about doing anything new here. | |
|
| | . Lol, that was funny RLH_115
1.5TB drives are not Enterprise and should not be used in a san. They are not even nearline.
Something like a netapp FAS3000 or FAS6000 would work just fine. Lots of large buisneses have large SANs like this.
My guess is they already have quite a few SANs for their VOD services. | |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Feh "Data Warehouse"? You can fit 720TB in a single rack using something like the Sun Fire X4500/X4540. One rack does not a data warehousemake. | |
|
| | | Re: Feh said by Guspaz:"Data Warehouse"? You can fit 720TB in a single rack using something like the Sun Fire X4500/X4540. One rack does not a data warehousemake. The term "Data warehouse" doesn't literally mean a warehouse full of hardware. | |
|
| |  KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC
kudos:1 | Re: Feh said by fifty nine:said by Guspaz:"Data Warehouse"? You can fit 720TB in a single rack using something like the Sun Fire X4500/X4540. One rack does not a data warehousemake. The term "Data warehouse" doesn't literally mean a warehouse full of hardware. This is actually right up my companies alley...I wonder if we're being considered....interesting, I will have to check on it. | |
|
|
rantou
join:2002-06-04
Wylie, TX | PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong... Am I interpreting this correctly? When I search for red head porn online, now I am going to be advertised to while watching American Idol about some red head porn site?
Wow, my wife will be MAD! I guess it could be worse.. I could see my wife's porn too! | |
|
 EpikosSurpass the Usual or OrdinaryPremium
join:2003-07-27
Hillsboro, OR | Panasas 6200 Networked Attached Storage 
Three of these bad boys would do it.
Nothing special about them.
They're used in large corporate environments.
This Canoe project is totally doable with nothing fancy, just gotta throw some dollars at it.
»www.panasas.com/activestor.html
You could also do it with a NetApp cluster.
FAS6000: "Scale to more than 1,100 terabytes of raw storage capacity"
»www.netapp.com/us/products/stora···fas6000/
Again, nothing too fancy.
If Comcast really wants to do this, it's going to happen.
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person! | |
|
| | | Re: Panasas 6200 Networked Attached Storage It isn't going to happen, it already has.
The up-front cost is really pennies to a monop...er, company. And they're splitting the cost as several operators are in on this shenanigan. | |
|
 KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL | As long as 'interactive' means there's a 'skip' option... I'm all for it! | |
|
| TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:2 | Re: As long as 'interactive' means there's a 'skip' option... Amen! | |
|
| | Phorm/Nebuad for cable isn't this along the same lines as the entire ISP thing awhile back? | |
|
|
|
