My Mass Money Maker Review

So, Mass Money Makers is just about to launch and it seems to like that everyone is on board.

I am sure that you will receive like ten more emails about it, but I got a sneak peek at the product, and want to give you my review.

So, what is Mass Money Makers?

It's based on a simple concept that works (and works well)...this concept is what allows us to rank on 1st page of Google within two to three weeks for just about any keyword out there...

...then we take those same rankings and get them to build massive (really massive) lists...which in turn are piped through "mass money funnels" and the end result is money.

Simple, yet very powerful. Indeed it is, and that's why they've simplified it into four core videos that are 2 to 3 hours each, where they break down everything in minute detail.

Can you get any better then that?

So in the end, I vote for Mass Money Makers. It's a great product, that really works.

If you've been looking for a way to make money online, then you really need to get in on it before the launch is completed.

When they first opened the doors, they said the software would be limited. I just got an update from them and as of now they only have 17 spots left!

I highly recommend that you get your hands on this software right now!

GO here:
http://tinyurl.com/4qdqwt6

Super Memory Breakthrough: Store Every Movie Made This Year on Your Phone (With Room to Spare)

Super Memory Breakthrough: Store Every Movie Made This Year on Your Phone (With Room to Spare)

Novell acquired by Attachmate, sells some patents to Microsoft

Novell acquired by Attachmate, sells some patents to Microsoft

China Officially Overtakes U.S. in Supercomputer Performance

China Officially Overtakes U.S. in Supercomputer Performance

RAID Levels Explained

By: Samara Lynn

 

Source

Whether you're looking to optimize performance on your small business server or you just want to defend against total data loss on a NAS box, you need RAID. But what the heck is it, and which RAID do you need? RAID 0? Raid 1? RAID 10? Don't worry, we'll help you pick.

 

Anyone who's ever looked into purchasing a NAS device or server, particularly for a business, has inevitably stumbled across the term "RAID." RAID stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive or (the more marketing-friendly "Independent) Disks." In general, RAID uses two or more hard disk drives to improve the performance or provide some level of fault tolerance for a machine—typically a NAS or server. Fault tolerance is simply providing a "safety net" for failed hardware, usually a hard drive, by ensuring that the machine with the failed component can still operate. Fault tolerance lessens interruptions in productivity and the chance of data loss.

Hardware RAID

There are two ways to configure RAID: with hardware or software. Hardware RAID is most traditionally implemented in businesses and organizations where disk fault tolerance and optimized performance are must-haves, not luxuries. There are some advantages and disadvantages with hardware-based RAID. It's more expensive, because configuring it requires an additional hardware component, a RAID controller which is a piece of hardware that controls the RAID array. RAID controllers can be internal, meaning they connect inside of a server to the motherboard or external (usually reserved for enterprise, high-level RAID solutions). Hardware- based RAID is also considered a better performing, more efficient way to implement RAID than software RAID. Hardware-based RAID is used most in corporate servers and business-class NAS drives.

Software RAID

Software RAID is arguably not as reliable as hardware RAID, but it's definitely more economical and can still deliver basic fault tolerance. You can't configure RAID arrays as complex with software as you can with hardware, but if you just want to implement mirroring (which is copying data from one drive to another, to keep that data accessible in case a drive fails) then software RAID is a cheaper, less complicated to set up option. Instead of using a bunch of disks and a controller to make an array, some software RAID solutions can use logical partitions on a single disk. That's what makes it both cheaper and less reliable—if that single disk fails completely, your data is gone.

Windows 7 (Pro and Ultimate editions) has inherent support for RAID; you can set up a single disk with two partitions, and have those partitions mirrored (RAID 1) or you can setup disk striping for performance (RAID 0). This type of RAID is available in other operating systems as well like Apple's Snow Leopard Server 10.6, Linux and Windows Server 2003 and 2008. Since this type of RAID already comes as a feature in the OS, the price can't be beat. Software RAID can also comprise of virtual RAID solutions offered by vendors such as Dot Hill to deliver powerful host-based virtual RAID adapters. This is a solution that is more tailored to enterprise networks.

Which RAID Is Right For Me?

Once you've decided whether software or hardware RAID best suits your purposes, you need to pick a RAID level—this refers to how you are going to configure RAID on your device. There are several RAID levels, and the one you choose depends on whether you are using RAID for performance or fault tolerance (or both). It also matters whether you have hardware or software RAID, because software supports fewer levels than hardware-based RAID. In the case of hardware RAID, the type of controller you have matters, too. Different controllers support different levels of RAID and also dictate the kinds of disks you can use in an array: SAS, SATA or SSD).

Here's a rundown on each level of RAID:

• RAID 0 is used to boost a server's performance. It's also known as "disk striping." With RAID 0, data is written across multiple disks. This means the work that the computer is doing is handled by multiple disks rather than just one, increasing performance because multiple drives are reading and writing data, improving disk I/O. A minimum of two disks is required, but RAID 0 can be implemented with up to four disks. Both software and hardware RAID support RAID 0 as do most controllers. The downside is that there is no fault tolerance. If one disk fails then that affects the entire array and the chances for data loss or corruption increases.
• RAID 1 is a fault-tolerance configuration known as "disk mirroring." With RAID 1, data is copied seamlessly and simultaneously, from one disk to another, creating a replica, or mirror. If one disk gets fried, the other can keep working. It's the simplest relatively low-cost way to implement fault-tolerance. The downside is that RAID 1 causes a slight drag on performance. RAID 1 can be implemented through either software or hardware RAID. A minimum of two disks are required for RAID 1 hardware implementations. With software RAID 1, instead of two physical disks, data is mirrored between volumes on a single disk. One additional point to remember is that RAID 1 cuts total disk capacity in half: if a server with two 1 TB drives is configured with RAID 1, then total storage capacity will be 1 TB not 2 TB.
• RAID 5 is by far the most common RAID configuration for business servers and enterprise NAS devices. This RAID level provides better performance than mirroring as well as fault-tolerance. With RAID 5, data and parity (which is additional data used for recovery) are striped across three or more disks. Disk drives typically fail in sectors, rather than the entire drive dying. When RAID 5 is configured, if a portion of a disk fails, that data gets recreated from the remaining data and parity, seamlessly and automatically. This is beneficial because RAID 5 allows many NAS and server drives to be "hot-swappable" meaning in case a drive in the array fails, that drive can be swapped with a new drive without shutting down the server or NAS and without having to interrupt users who may be accessing the server or NAS. It's a great solution for data redundancy, because as drives fail (and they eventually will), the data can be re-built to new disks as failing disks are replaced. RAID 5 can be implemented as a software or hardware solution. You'll get better performance with hardware RAID 5, because the work is done by the controller without taxing the system processor. The downside to RAID 5 is the performance hit to servers that perform a lot of write operations. For example, with RAID 5 on a server that has a database that many employees access in a workday, there could be noticeable lag.
• RAID 10 is a combination of RAID 1 and 0 and is often denoted as RAID 1+0. It combines the mirroring of RAID 1 with the striping of RAID 0. It's the RAID level that gives the best performance, but it is also costly, requiring two times as many disks of other RAID levels, for a minimum of four. This is the RAID level ideal for highly used database servers or any server that's performing many write operations. RAID 10 can be implemented as hardware or software but the general consensus is that many of the performance advantages are lost when you use software RAID 10. RAID 10 requires a minimum of four disks.

Other RAID Levels   There are other RAID levels: 2, 3, 4, 7, 0+1...but they are really variants of the main RAID configurations already mentioned and used for specific instances. Here are some short descriptions of each:

• RAID 2 is similar to RAID 5, but instead of disk striping using parity, striping occurs at the bit-level. RAID 2 is seldom deployed because costs to implement are usually prohibitive (a typical setup requires 10 disks) and gives poor performance with some disk I/O operations.
• RAID 3 is also similar to RAID 5, except this solution requires a dedicated parity drive. RAID 3 is seldom used but in the most specific types of database or processing environments that would benefit from it.
• RAID 4 is similar to RAID except disk striping happens at the byte level, rather than the bit-level as in RAID 3.
• RAID 7 is a proprietary level of RAID owned by the now-extinct Storage Computer Corporation.
• RAID 0+1 is often interchanged for RAID 10 (which is RAID 1+0) but the two are not same. RAID 0+1 is a mirrored array with segments that are RAID 0 arrays. It's implemented in specific infrastructures requiring high performance but not a high level of scalability.

For most small to mid-size business purposes, RAID 0, 1, 5 and in some cases 10 suffice for good fault tolerance and or performance solutions. For most home users RAID 5 may be overkill, but software RAID 1 mirroring provides decent fault tolerance, and hardware mirroring with two physical drives is provides even better, if you can afford it. One last thought: Remember, RAID is not backup, nor does it replace a backup strategy—preferably an automated one. RAID can be a great way to optimize NAS and server performance, but it's only part of an overall disaster recovery solution.

Are open source programmers fools and suckers?

SOURCE by David M Williams

Monday, 30 November 2009

Analyst and consultant Josh Greenbaum has criticised the European Commission’s view that Oracle should jettison MySQL. Part of his argument is that MySQL can’t die because it is open source – and, Greenbaum says, this means there is no end of suckers willing to maintain it for free. This line of argument isn’t new and the open source software model has long been criticised. Microsoft has previously shrugged off open source software as something which doesn’t provide incentive to software developers to innovate. Greenbaum echoes this when he offers an apology to offended open source professionals by saying he believes their interests are best served by no longer working for free and, effectively, making fat-cat speculative investors rich. In part, open source software isn’t about money. Young Finnish student Linus Torvalds certainly wasn’t thinking “how can I monetise this?” when he posted his now-famous Usenet post that he’d made a rudimentary Linux-like kernel. It’s possible Greenbaum hasn’t heard of a little company known as Red Hat Linux. Red Hat is behind two significant Linux distributions today; Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Anyone can download Fedora for free. RHEL, on the other hand, is available to enterprises for a license fee. By working with major server vendors like Hewlett Packard (HP) and IBM Red Hat has successfully certified its operating system on hardware that big companies want to use. Actually, if you want RHEL you can still get it for free, anyway. Being an open source product the source code is available. The CentOS Linux team take this source code, remove the proprietary Red Hat branding, compile and distribute it in the form of CentOS. Thus, you can still have an enterprise-grade Linux at no cost. Going back further, the Linux kernel is maintained by Linus Torvalds still to this day. So, while Red Hat is making money from selling Linux perhaps it is the type of fat cat Greenbaum is thinking of, exploiting Torvalds? Actually, while I have no knowledge of Torvalds wealth or otherwise, he successfully makes a living out of Linux. He is sponsored by the Linux Foundation so that he can devote himself to the operating system without need to pursue other employment. The Linux Foundation in turn draws its revenue from member companies – of which IBM, Red Hat and HP are members, along with Novell and other big names. Similarly, these large organisations have themselves contributed to the Linux kernel, and take some credit for its continued development and improvement. In fact, 70% of contributions to the Linux kernel have come from companies who are paying developers for this work. In case you think the Linux kernel is a special case, consider too that the most widely-used web server powering the Internet is Apache, itself an open source project and with source code given away. Both Linux and Apache are big business. As is WordPress, SugarCRM and many other well-known and widely-used open source systems. So, are these people chumps? Are they working for free? Can you really make a dime out of open source? Yes. It’s important to make the distinction that “open source” isn’t the same as “anti-commercial.” In fact, because open source is accessible – you can download it and use it at no cost and without functionality restrictions – it has a lower barrier to adoption than any commercial product. Test out SugarCRM, for instance, and if it doesn’t suit your needs you’ve only lost time. By contrast, you will barely find any company that lets you test drive Microsoft CRM without lengthy and costly business analysis and gap analysis and project meetings. Here’s where one of the primary open source business models kicks in. If customers have your product already and are using it chances are they’ll need help or need some extra feature. Consequently, open source companies don’t primarily sell licenses but instead services such as support and custom development. This concept isn’t strange and unusual. Since the dawn of time people have been giving things away in order to sell something else. Telcos offer $0 mobile phone handsets if you sign up on a contract phone plan. Finance companies will give you a television or holiday if you take out your loan with them. In the same manner giving away software for free is actually a smart move. It encourages adoption and consumption, and increasing consumption of a product increases the size of the market for any ancillary or derivative product or service that accompanies the product. If the product is unique enough and good enough it can become the market leader. Apache is the world’s leading web server, despite that Microsoft’s Internet Information Server (IIS) ships for free with Microsoft server products. By being free and very good it’s a mammoth task for any person who thinks they can make a competing commercial web server product. You can’t beat Apache on price so it will take an awful lot of work to beat it on features. Consequently, companies and individuals providing paid Apache support can expect continued work for years to come. The same for Red Hat with Linux support, for IBM and HP for Linux server hardware sales and support, the same for WordPress and SugarCRM with custom themes and addons. Indeed, the real ‘suckers’ could possibly be those who continue purchasing proprietary applications and then pay for continued upgrades and maintenance where those products are inferior to open source equivalents. SOURCE

Campbell: Linux presents a competitor to Chrome OS

SOURCE

By Donald Campbell / Columnist

published: Mon, 30 Nov, 2009

An operating systems war has begun.

The possibility of a series of netbooks available for bargain-basement prices became realistic in the minds of computer buyers because of cloud computing and its lack of hefty hardware requirements.

The war might prove not nearly as bitter as the war waged between avid Windows fans and die-hard Apple supporters, but considering the jabs between Google’s Chrome OS and Jolicloud — a new Ubuntu Linux-based cloud operating system for netbooks — the battle looks like it could get pretty heated.

Private invitation-only users currently test Jolicloud, but some people arguing on Computerworld.com’s blogs have, as well.

The approaches that Google and Jolicloud have taken in developing an operating system for “The Cloud” seem to create the main source of contention.

The two operating systems are similar in that their respective developers designed them for low-cost netbooks. They also both rely on Internet applications to provide most of their functionalities.

Both operating systems will allow users to function without a large hard drive, as servers on the Internet store all the data — hence the moniker “cloud.”

Both machines rely heavily on Internet technologies, specifically HTML, JavaScript and CSS, for user interface function and are geared toward running Web applications.

Both operating systems will sport user interfaces that allow quick and easy access to Internet-based information.

Not surprisingly, both operating systems’ developers cite the separation of the Internet and the local machine, prevalent in modern incarnations of Windows, Mac OS X and traditional Linux distributions, as problematic and inefficient.

They differ in underlying platform and generic outlook on the way to look forward for cloud-oriented netbooks.

Google, according to an article on Computerworld.com describing Jolicloud, will actively prevent users from utilizing hard drives on its Chrome OS-enabled netbooks.

It will instead utilize smaller bits of on-board memory for temporary storage, and it will rely completely on the cloud for long-term data storage and application support.

Jolicloud will more resemble traditional Linux, specifically Ubuntu Linux, in that it will include support for hard drives and will gear users’ activities toward the cloud.

Eric Lai, the author of a Computerworld.com article about Jolicloud, described Jolicloud’s approach as allowing some limited local storage, using hard drives within Jolicloud-enabled netbooks, for saving data that users feel reluctant to publish to the cloud.

Jolicloud will also allow users to run specific applications — Lai specifically cites Skype — from a local machine, rather than relying on the cloud to provide application support.

Its developers have also started promoting Jolicloud’s inherent graphical abilities.

Jolicloud has support for the graphics chips that are common among the industry’s top-selling netbooks, allowing them to display high definition graphics. Jolicloud also trumpets a complex, Mac-like user interface.

Tariq Krim, the CEO of Jolicloud, described Google Chrome’s user interface alternatively as “generic.”
In this way, Jolicloud appears to promote itself as a Linux platform first and a cloud solution a close second — Google’s Chrome is comparatively uninterested in pure graphical ability, insofar as it exceeds the requirements of attractive, efficient Internet rendering.

Google plans on aggressively going after the netbook market, while Jolicloud seems to plan to taking over the netbook market by evolution.

Google has started actively seeking contracts with various netbook manufacturers, Lai wrote, to have Chrome shipped with many netbook devices.

Jolicloud’s makers seems content to provide users with a free download of its eventual final product, making it simply to dual-boot machines for users who do not wish to convert entirely and permanently to Jolicloud.

Jolicloud might ultimately prove to be a legitimate competitor to Google’s previously-published plans to take over the netbook market.

Its course seems less severe than Google’s in that its design doesn’t force users to abandon locally stored data and applications.

Ubuntu, the underlying distribution that led to Jolicloud, is also extremely popular. Jolicloud might gain market share simply by having loyal Ubuntu users switching to it on their machines to take advantage of cloud-centric features.

The graphical abilities of Jolicloud and its inherent hardware support of the graphics chips on many popular netbooks will also make the operating system a less painful, and possibly beneficial, transition for users accustomed to traditional Ubuntu distributions on their netbook devices.

SOURCE