<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_0048247</id>
	<title>DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260538560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, <a href="http://drbd.org/">DRBD</a>, has been <a href="http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/DRBD-Merged-into-Mainline-Kernel">accepted as part of the main Linux kernel</a>. Amid much fanfare and some <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/21/255">slight controversy</a>, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010. DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of <a href="http://linbit.com/">LINBIT</a>, based in Vienna. Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP , DRBD , has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel .
Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy , Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree , expected to release February , 2010 .
DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years , but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT , based in Vienna .
Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, DRBD, has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel.
Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010.
DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT, based in Vienna.
Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400274</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>dr.newton</author>
	<datestamp>1260538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I shall now make several statements that may prove informative to you.</p><p>DRBD is not "another networking module".</p><p>Adding this feature to mainline, and thus maybe getting some RHEL support for it, will benefit a large number of companies doing things for themselves with Free software.</p><p>There is nothing else like this in the kernel.</p><p>If one wants new features, one must accept the occasional addition of some code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall now make several statements that may prove informative to you.DRBD is not " another networking module " .Adding this feature to mainline , and thus maybe getting some RHEL support for it , will benefit a large number of companies doing things for themselves with Free software.There is nothing else like this in the kernel.If one wants new features , one must accept the occasional addition of some code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall now make several statements that may prove informative to you.DRBD is not "another networking module".Adding this feature to mainline, and thus maybe getting some RHEL support for it, will benefit a large number of companies doing things for themselves with Free software.There is nothing else like this in the kernel.If one wants new features, one must accept the occasional addition of some code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397866</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes!  It takes like 10 minutes to compile the default kernel for all those users that compile their own kernel!  Clearly linux is going down the tubes!  What insanity!</p><p>What's with all the idiotic posts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
It takes like 10 minutes to compile the default kernel for all those users that compile their own kernel !
Clearly linux is going down the tubes !
What insanity ! What 's with all the idiotic posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
It takes like 10 minutes to compile the default kernel for all those users that compile their own kernel!
Clearly linux is going down the tubes!
What insanity!What's with all the idiotic posts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399104</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moral of story theres more invalid than valid here at slashdot, but hay it is freespeech, doesnt mean people know what there talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moral of story theres more invalid than valid here at slashdot , but hay it is freespeech , doesnt mean people know what there talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moral of story theres more invalid than valid here at slashdot, but hay it is freespeech, doesnt mean people know what there talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534</id>
	<title>Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260456180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64. It offered very similar technology to this. Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better. Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 15 years ago , I worked for a place that used Tru64 .
It offered very similar technology to this .
Frankly , we found typical hardware solutions to work better .
Software is better at some things , but for work like this , you want it done as much in hardware as is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64.
It offered very similar technology to this.
Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better.
Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398082</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260461580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that, like so many things, while there is room for the best way, there is a great deal of room for the "reasonably good and a whole lot cheaper" way.<br> <br>

A whole lot of progress in modern IT, especially on the server side, is less about exceeding the architectural sophistication of 70s-80s UNIX systems and mainframes, and more about making some of those capabilities available on sucktastic x86s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that , like so many things , while there is room for the best way , there is a great deal of room for the " reasonably good and a whole lot cheaper " way .
A whole lot of progress in modern IT , especially on the server side , is less about exceeding the architectural sophistication of 70s-80s UNIX systems and mainframes , and more about making some of those capabilities available on sucktastic x86s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that, like so many things, while there is room for the best way, there is a great deal of room for the "reasonably good and a whole lot cheaper" way.
A whole lot of progress in modern IT, especially on the server side, is less about exceeding the architectural sophistication of 70s-80s UNIX systems and mainframes, and more about making some of those capabilities available on sucktastic x86s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400220</id>
	<title>Re:Many ways</title>
	<author>dr.newton</author>
	<datestamp>1260537360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have searched high and low for something truly equivalent to DRBD, and cannot find it.</p><p>Not only does DRBD provide replicated storage that can be shared among multiple nodes with synchronous writes, but it also has HA features, like supporting failure and restoration of a node without a loss in service.</p><p>No combination cluster filesystems and NBD-style storage-over-the-network software does this. They need shared storage to provide redundant, HA access to data.</p><p>I have thought about trying to jimmy up something using AoE and RAID1 to accomplish the same thing, but it looks like it would be a filthy hack.</p><p>If I am incorrect, *please* correct me, because I would love an alternative to DRBD that is not SAN + cluster filesystem!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have searched high and low for something truly equivalent to DRBD , and can not find it.Not only does DRBD provide replicated storage that can be shared among multiple nodes with synchronous writes , but it also has HA features , like supporting failure and restoration of a node without a loss in service.No combination cluster filesystems and NBD-style storage-over-the-network software does this .
They need shared storage to provide redundant , HA access to data.I have thought about trying to jimmy up something using AoE and RAID1 to accomplish the same thing , but it looks like it would be a filthy hack.If I am incorrect , * please * correct me , because I would love an alternative to DRBD that is not SAN + cluster filesystem !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have searched high and low for something truly equivalent to DRBD, and cannot find it.Not only does DRBD provide replicated storage that can be shared among multiple nodes with synchronous writes, but it also has HA features, like supporting failure and restoration of a node without a loss in service.No combination cluster filesystems and NBD-style storage-over-the-network software does this.
They need shared storage to provide redundant, HA access to data.I have thought about trying to jimmy up something using AoE and RAID1 to accomplish the same thing, but it looks like it would be a filthy hack.If I am incorrect, *please* correct me, because I would love an alternative to DRBD that is not SAN + cluster filesystem!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398394</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>eyepeepackets</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are called modules for a reason: You can add or remove at will, including whether or not you bother to build them at all. To say modules are "built into the kernel" is incorrect; module code is included with the kernel source code, but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.</p><p>As concerns the "insanity" of configuring a kernel, here again you have a choice: Use Ubuntu. But if you want a fast, lean, mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are called modules for a reason : You can add or remove at will , including whether or not you bother to build them at all .
To say modules are " built into the kernel " is incorrect ; module code is included with the kernel source code , but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.As concerns the " insanity " of configuring a kernel , here again you have a choice : Use Ubuntu .
But if you want a fast , lean , mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are called modules for a reason: You can add or remove at will, including whether or not you bother to build them at all.
To say modules are "built into the kernel" is incorrect; module code is included with the kernel source code, but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.As concerns the "insanity" of configuring a kernel, here again you have a choice: Use Ubuntu.
But if you want a fast, lean, mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399692</id>
	<title>Re:to be honest, i dont really like drbd</title>
	<author>sydb</author>
	<datestamp>1260530100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I implemented a DRBD/heartbeat mail cluster for a client about six years ago. At the same time I implemented a half-baked user replication solution using Unison when we should have been using LDAP. I picked up DRBD and heartbeat easily under pressure and found the config logical and consistent once I understood the underlying concepts. Certainly not bloated. Unison on the other hand caused major headaches. So quite clearly, like LSD, DRBD affects different users in different ways and perhaps you should stick to the crack you're smoking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I implemented a DRBD/heartbeat mail cluster for a client about six years ago .
At the same time I implemented a half-baked user replication solution using Unison when we should have been using LDAP .
I picked up DRBD and heartbeat easily under pressure and found the config logical and consistent once I understood the underlying concepts .
Certainly not bloated .
Unison on the other hand caused major headaches .
So quite clearly , like LSD , DRBD affects different users in different ways and perhaps you should stick to the crack you 're smoking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I implemented a DRBD/heartbeat mail cluster for a client about six years ago.
At the same time I implemented a half-baked user replication solution using Unison when we should have been using LDAP.
I picked up DRBD and heartbeat easily under pressure and found the config logical and consistent once I understood the underlying concepts.
Certainly not bloated.
Unison on the other hand caused major headaches.
So quite clearly, like LSD, DRBD affects different users in different ways and perhaps you should stick to the crack you're smoking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399446</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>bmcage</author>
	<datestamp>1260526380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a kernel module.  Don't like it, don't load it.</p></div><p>I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied.  If it's just a module that's fine by me.  Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel.  I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.</p></div><p>Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree? Just type lsmod to see your modules, and do <tt>man modprobe</tt> to see how modules are loaded and unloaded. </p><p>Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel, with all modules, detect your requirements, and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a kernel module .
Do n't like it , do n't load it.I missed where its a module and not " To Be Included in Linux Kernel " as the title implied .
If it 's just a module that 's fine by me .
Just keep it as a module and do n't compile it into the kernel .
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree ?
Just type lsmod to see your modules , and do man modprobe to see how modules are loaded and unloaded .
Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel , with all modules , detect your requirements , and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a kernel module.
Don't like it, don't load it.I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied.
If it's just a module that's fine by me.
Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel.
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree?
Just type lsmod to see your modules, and do man modprobe to see how modules are loaded and unloaded.
Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel, with all modules, detect your requirements, and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399724</id>
	<title>Re:to be honest, i dont really like drbd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260530820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...thats not the way i mean to come across."</p><p>What rot. If that were the case you would have edited your post before posting. You didn't change anything. You meant to come across the way you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...thats not the way i mean to come across .
" What rot .
If that were the case you would have edited your post before posting .
You did n't change anything .
You meant to come across the way you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...thats not the way i mean to come across.
"What rot.
If that were the case you would have edited your post before posting.
You didn't change anything.
You meant to come across the way you did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250</id>
	<title>Linux FS rocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admin AIX systems for my day job... One thing that's really nice about AIX is that the filesystem and underlying block device is highly integrated. This means that to resize a volume you can run a single command that does it on the fly.  For AIX admins who are new to Linux it seems a step backwards and they liken it to HP-UX or some earlier volume management...</p><p>Ahh, but the beauty of having separate filesystem and block device is that it's so damn flexible.  I can build an LVM volume group on iSCSI LUNs exported from a another system. In that VG I can create a set of LUNs that I can use for the basis of my DRBD volume. In that DRBD volume I can carve out other disks.  Or I can multipath them. Or create a software RAID.</p><p>Anyhoo, DRBD is a really cool technology. It gives the ability to create HA pairs on the cheap. You can put anything from a shared apache docroot there to the disks for Oracle RAC.  With  fast networking available for cheap, almost any shop can have the toys that were once only affordable to big companies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admin AIX systems for my day job... One thing that 's really nice about AIX is that the filesystem and underlying block device is highly integrated .
This means that to resize a volume you can run a single command that does it on the fly .
For AIX admins who are new to Linux it seems a step backwards and they liken it to HP-UX or some earlier volume management...Ahh , but the beauty of having separate filesystem and block device is that it 's so damn flexible .
I can build an LVM volume group on iSCSI LUNs exported from a another system .
In that VG I can create a set of LUNs that I can use for the basis of my DRBD volume .
In that DRBD volume I can carve out other disks .
Or I can multipath them .
Or create a software RAID.Anyhoo , DRBD is a really cool technology .
It gives the ability to create HA pairs on the cheap .
You can put anything from a shared apache docroot there to the disks for Oracle RAC .
With fast networking available for cheap , almost any shop can have the toys that were once only affordable to big companies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admin AIX systems for my day job... One thing that's really nice about AIX is that the filesystem and underlying block device is highly integrated.
This means that to resize a volume you can run a single command that does it on the fly.
For AIX admins who are new to Linux it seems a step backwards and they liken it to HP-UX or some earlier volume management...Ahh, but the beauty of having separate filesystem and block device is that it's so damn flexible.
I can build an LVM volume group on iSCSI LUNs exported from a another system.
In that VG I can create a set of LUNs that I can use for the basis of my DRBD volume.
In that DRBD volume I can carve out other disks.
Or I can multipath them.
Or create a software RAID.Anyhoo, DRBD is a really cool technology.
It gives the ability to create HA pairs on the cheap.
You can put anything from a shared apache docroot there to the disks for Oracle RAC.
With  fast networking available for cheap, almost any shop can have the toys that were once only affordable to big companies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398722</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>dgym</author>
	<datestamp>1260471660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not about to dismiss your experience, but things have changed over the last 15 years so it might not be as relevant as it once was.
<br> <br>
In that time processors have become much faster, memory has become much cheaper, commodity servers have also become much cheaper and a lot of software has become free. While that has happened hard disks have become only a little faster. As a result many people consider custom hardware for driving those disks to be unnecessary - generic hardware is more than fast enough and is significantly cheaper.
<br> <br>
There might still be some compelling reasons to go with expensive redundant SAN equipment, but for many situations a couple of generic servers full of disks and running Linux and DRBD will do an admirable job. The bottleneck will most likely be the disks or the network, both of which can be addressed by spending some of the vast amount of money saved by not going with typical enterprise solutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not about to dismiss your experience , but things have changed over the last 15 years so it might not be as relevant as it once was .
In that time processors have become much faster , memory has become much cheaper , commodity servers have also become much cheaper and a lot of software has become free .
While that has happened hard disks have become only a little faster .
As a result many people consider custom hardware for driving those disks to be unnecessary - generic hardware is more than fast enough and is significantly cheaper .
There might still be some compelling reasons to go with expensive redundant SAN equipment , but for many situations a couple of generic servers full of disks and running Linux and DRBD will do an admirable job .
The bottleneck will most likely be the disks or the network , both of which can be addressed by spending some of the vast amount of money saved by not going with typical enterprise solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not about to dismiss your experience, but things have changed over the last 15 years so it might not be as relevant as it once was.
In that time processors have become much faster, memory has become much cheaper, commodity servers have also become much cheaper and a lot of software has become free.
While that has happened hard disks have become only a little faster.
As a result many people consider custom hardware for driving those disks to be unnecessary - generic hardware is more than fast enough and is significantly cheaper.
There might still be some compelling reasons to go with expensive redundant SAN equipment, but for many situations a couple of generic servers full of disks and running Linux and DRBD will do an admirable job.
The bottleneck will most likely be the disks or the network, both of which can be addressed by spending some of the vast amount of money saved by not going with typical enterprise solutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399304</id>
	<title>Compared to VMS clusters...</title>
	<author>pesc</author>
	<datestamp>1260524400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, Linux gets disk level clustering?</p><p>It is interesting to compare with what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMS\_cluster" title="wikipedia.org">VMS offered 25 years ago</a> [wikipedia.org]:<br>- VMS could have multiple nodes (can DRBD? It is not obvious from the web site.)<br>- All VMS nodes have read and write access to the file systems<br>- The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed\_lock\_manager" title="wikipedia.org">distributed lock manager</a> [wikipedia.org] helps with file locking in this case.<br>- VMS has the concept of <a href="http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz\_9807.html" title="hp.com">quorum</a> [hp.com] to avoid the "split brain" syndrom mentioned on the web page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , Linux gets disk level clustering ? It is interesting to compare with what VMS offered 25 years ago [ wikipedia.org ] : - VMS could have multiple nodes ( can DRBD ?
It is not obvious from the web site .
) - All VMS nodes have read and write access to the file systems- The distributed lock manager [ wikipedia.org ] helps with file locking in this case.- VMS has the concept of quorum [ hp.com ] to avoid the " split brain " syndrom mentioned on the web page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, Linux gets disk level clustering?It is interesting to compare with what VMS offered 25 years ago [wikipedia.org]:- VMS could have multiple nodes (can DRBD?
It is not obvious from the web site.
)- All VMS nodes have read and write access to the file systems- The distributed lock manager [wikipedia.org] helps with file locking in this case.- VMS has the concept of quorum [hp.com] to avoid the "split brain" syndrom mentioned on the web page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400174</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1260536700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE too</i></p><p>Indeed, but you don't want to do live migration over high-latency links with iSCSI. DRBD may be a better way to go if you want live migration between data centers in different countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE tooIndeed , but you do n't want to do live migration over high-latency links with iSCSI .
DRBD may be a better way to go if you want live migration between data centers in different countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE tooIndeed, but you don't want to do live migration over high-latency links with iSCSI.
DRBD may be a better way to go if you want live migration between data centers in different countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398492</id>
	<title>Puzzled</title>
	<author>Whiteox</author>
	<datestamp>1260467760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but what does it all mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but what does it all mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but what does it all mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397942</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260459600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want "make localmodconfig", which I think was also added recently, possibly to 2.6.32 actually.  This builds a kernel using a local<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.config file, except that it only compiles modules that show up in lsmod.  So if you boot off your vendor kernel with a squillion modules, let it load the modules you actually *use* then do make localmodconfig, you can make a kernel that only contains those modules.  I don't know what it does if module names etc change, maybe you'd need manual fixup then - should still be less work than you currently are doing though.</p><p>There's some explanation here, though it might be for an out-of-date version of the patch:<br><a href="http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html" title="derkeiler.com">http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html</a> [derkeiler.com]</p><p>As the other reply said, make oldconfig is also useful to important settings from a previously configured kernel, can save a lot of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want " make localmodconfig " , which I think was also added recently , possibly to 2.6.32 actually .
This builds a kernel using a local .config file , except that it only compiles modules that show up in lsmod .
So if you boot off your vendor kernel with a squillion modules , let it load the modules you actually * use * then do make localmodconfig , you can make a kernel that only contains those modules .
I do n't know what it does if module names etc change , maybe you 'd need manual fixup then - should still be less work than you currently are doing though.There 's some explanation here , though it might be for an out-of-date version of the patch : http : //linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html [ derkeiler.com ] As the other reply said , make oldconfig is also useful to important settings from a previously configured kernel , can save a lot of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want "make localmodconfig", which I think was also added recently, possibly to 2.6.32 actually.
This builds a kernel using a local .config file, except that it only compiles modules that show up in lsmod.
So if you boot off your vendor kernel with a squillion modules, let it load the modules you actually *use* then do make localmodconfig, you can make a kernel that only contains those modules.
I don't know what it does if module names etc change, maybe you'd need manual fixup then - should still be less work than you currently are doing though.There's some explanation here, though it might be for an out-of-date version of the patch:http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html [derkeiler.com]As the other reply said, make oldconfig is also useful to important settings from a previously configured kernel, can save a lot of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398612</id>
	<title>Re:Linux FS rocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as you're paying for Oracle RAC, you're so far gone from the Realm of Cheap that saving some bucks with DRBD isn't a concern any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as you 're paying for Oracle RAC , you 're so far gone from the Realm of Cheap that saving some bucks with DRBD is n't a concern any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as you're paying for Oracle RAC, you're so far gone from the Realm of Cheap that saving some bucks with DRBD isn't a concern any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400494</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260540420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>    Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications. It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.</p></div><p>If you're trying to save a megabyte of RAM on a modern computer, you're a tool. Building your own kernel was totally mandatory back in the 386 days, but it's totally unnecessary for most users. They derive a lot more benefit from knowing that DKMS will function. With that said, I do have a laptop that I've pondered building a kernel for, because it's got a so-far-unsupported processor (Athlon 64 L110) and if I want cool n' quiet I need a custom kernel. But as a <em>user</em> the best bet is to buy something already running Linux so you don't have to jump through stupid hoops.</p><p>The short form is that only in seriously corner cases will anyone need to build a kernel today, and that is the way it should be. Perhaps if the kernel build system had feature dependencies, it would be less of a bitch. It's actually pretty amazing that it doesn't. Even drupal can figure out when a module needs another module.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , custom kernels work better for most applications .
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that 's been compiled in , and gives you exactly what you want.If you 're trying to save a megabyte of RAM on a modern computer , you 're a tool .
Building your own kernel was totally mandatory back in the 386 days , but it 's totally unnecessary for most users .
They derive a lot more benefit from knowing that DKMS will function .
With that said , I do have a laptop that I 've pondered building a kernel for , because it 's got a so-far-unsupported processor ( Athlon 64 L110 ) and if I want cool n ' quiet I need a custom kernel .
But as a user the best bet is to buy something already running Linux so you do n't have to jump through stupid hoops.The short form is that only in seriously corner cases will anyone need to build a kernel today , and that is the way it should be .
Perhaps if the kernel build system had feature dependencies , it would be less of a bitch .
It 's actually pretty amazing that it does n't .
Even drupal can figure out when a module needs another module .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications.
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.If you're trying to save a megabyte of RAM on a modern computer, you're a tool.
Building your own kernel was totally mandatory back in the 386 days, but it's totally unnecessary for most users.
They derive a lot more benefit from knowing that DKMS will function.
With that said, I do have a laptop that I've pondered building a kernel for, because it's got a so-far-unsupported processor (Athlon 64 L110) and if I want cool n' quiet I need a custom kernel.
But as a user the best bet is to buy something already running Linux so you don't have to jump through stupid hoops.The short form is that only in seriously corner cases will anyone need to build a kernel today, and that is the way it should be.
Perhaps if the kernel build system had feature dependencies, it would be less of a bitch.
It's actually pretty amazing that it doesn't.
Even drupal can figure out when a module needs another module.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30404664</id>
	<title>Re:Very Useful Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; but it gave more headaches than a warm (or even cold) standby</p><p>Yup.  And your software configuration is only as good as the brains, foresight, and experience of the people that configured it.  Way too many "unix admins", at least the cheap ones some companies hire, can only follow explicit examples that they find on the internet.  And examples on the internet tend to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. simple.  Basic.  They work.  But that doesn't mean they don't have hidden single points of failure.</p><p>At my workplace we had HA managing the shared IP and nfs, (and DRBD or was that on it's own?) (iirc), with one pubilc nic each for the NFS and DRBD, and then another pair of nics being a crossover cable that was where the HA heartbeat was transferred.</p><p>When one of the NICs in the private network failed, BOTH nodes claimed they were primary for the shared IP with nfs.  That was fun.  Glad we caught it quickly and activity was light, or who knows what kind of strange things would have happened.  "Help, help, a random sampling of my files are gone/not-right.  Wait, now it's the other way around, the first half are gone and the first missing half have appeared.  Wait..."</p><p>Also, we choose what a bunch of us thought was a rock solid vendor of SATA hardware raid cards for the individual drives on each node<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and a good/respected vendor for the motherboard, etc etc... but no, one of the motherboards had an intermittent fault (once every 2 weeks something strange), and the raid cards would once a week kick a random perfectly good drive out of the array (remember when Western Digital introduced the "RAID" version of it's 200GB SATA drives?  Yeah, that was a year after we started having these stupid problems.)</p><p>I strongly recommend against "roll your own" unless you're GOOGLE and you have REAL ENGINEERS doing the component choice, acceptance testing, etc etc.</p><p>Probably would have been fine if we'd just used a couple of Dells, which don't have as many "surprise" failure modes as your average homebuilt whitebox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; but it gave more headaches than a warm ( or even cold ) standbyYup .
And your software configuration is only as good as the brains , foresight , and experience of the people that configured it .
Way too many " unix admins " , at least the cheap ones some companies hire , can only follow explicit examples that they find on the internet .
And examples on the internet tend to be .. simple. Basic .
They work .
But that does n't mean they do n't have hidden single points of failure.At my workplace we had HA managing the shared IP and nfs , ( and DRBD or was that on it 's own ?
) ( iirc ) , with one pubilc nic each for the NFS and DRBD , and then another pair of nics being a crossover cable that was where the HA heartbeat was transferred.When one of the NICs in the private network failed , BOTH nodes claimed they were primary for the shared IP with nfs .
That was fun .
Glad we caught it quickly and activity was light , or who knows what kind of strange things would have happened .
" Help , help , a random sampling of my files are gone/not-right .
Wait , now it 's the other way around , the first half are gone and the first missing half have appeared .
Wait... " Also , we choose what a bunch of us thought was a rock solid vendor of SATA hardware raid cards for the individual drives on each node ... and a good/respected vendor for the motherboard , etc etc... but no , one of the motherboards had an intermittent fault ( once every 2 weeks something strange ) , and the raid cards would once a week kick a random perfectly good drive out of the array ( remember when Western Digital introduced the " RAID " version of it 's 200GB SATA drives ?
Yeah , that was a year after we started having these stupid problems .
) I strongly recommend against " roll your own " unless you 're GOOGLE and you have REAL ENGINEERS doing the component choice , acceptance testing , etc etc.Probably would have been fine if we 'd just used a couple of Dells , which do n't have as many " surprise " failure modes as your average homebuilt whitebox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; but it gave more headaches than a warm (or even cold) standbyYup.
And your software configuration is only as good as the brains, foresight, and experience of the people that configured it.
Way too many "unix admins", at least the cheap ones some companies hire, can only follow explicit examples that they find on the internet.
And examples on the internet tend to be .. simple.  Basic.
They work.
But that doesn't mean they don't have hidden single points of failure.At my workplace we had HA managing the shared IP and nfs, (and DRBD or was that on it's own?
) (iirc), with one pubilc nic each for the NFS and DRBD, and then another pair of nics being a crossover cable that was where the HA heartbeat was transferred.When one of the NICs in the private network failed, BOTH nodes claimed they were primary for the shared IP with nfs.
That was fun.
Glad we caught it quickly and activity was light, or who knows what kind of strange things would have happened.
"Help, help, a random sampling of my files are gone/not-right.
Wait, now it's the other way around, the first half are gone and the first missing half have appeared.
Wait..."Also, we choose what a bunch of us thought was a rock solid vendor of SATA hardware raid cards for the individual drives on each node ... and a good/respected vendor for the motherboard, etc etc... but no, one of the motherboards had an intermittent fault (once every 2 weeks something strange), and the raid cards would once a week kick a random perfectly good drive out of the array (remember when Western Digital introduced the "RAID" version of it's 200GB SATA drives?
Yeah, that was a year after we started having these stupid problems.
)I strongly recommend against "roll your own" unless you're GOOGLE and you have REAL ENGINEERS doing the component choice, acceptance testing, etc etc.Probably would have been fine if we'd just used a couple of Dells, which don't have as many "surprise" failure modes as your average homebuilt whitebox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134</id>
	<title>Re:Very Useful Software</title>
	<author>DerPflanz</author>
	<datestamp>1260565140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have used drbd 0.7 for some mission critical server, but it gave more headaches than a warm (or even cold) standby. The main problem is keeping you nodes synchronised for the disks that are NOT in the drbd (e.g.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr, etc). We put our software on drbd disk and the database on another. However, when adding services, it is easy to 'forget' to add the startup script in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/ha.d and the first failover results in not all services being started. Which leads to a support call.</p><p>I understand that we should perhaps change the setup to include a 'correct' way to provides updates, but just putting a raid-1 in a server, with database replication somewhere else just seems to be less of a hassle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have used drbd 0.7 for some mission critical server , but it gave more headaches than a warm ( or even cold ) standby .
The main problem is keeping you nodes synchronised for the disks that are NOT in the drbd ( e.g .
/ , /etc , /usr , etc ) .
We put our software on drbd disk and the database on another .
However , when adding services , it is easy to 'forget ' to add the startup script in /etc/ha.d and the first failover results in not all services being started .
Which leads to a support call.I understand that we should perhaps change the setup to include a 'correct ' way to provides updates , but just putting a raid-1 in a server , with database replication somewhere else just seems to be less of a hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have used drbd 0.7 for some mission critical server, but it gave more headaches than a warm (or even cold) standby.
The main problem is keeping you nodes synchronised for the disks that are NOT in the drbd (e.g.
/, /etc, /usr, etc).
We put our software on drbd disk and the database on another.
However, when adding services, it is easy to 'forget' to add the startup script in /etc/ha.d and the first failover results in not all services being started.
Which leads to a support call.I understand that we should perhaps change the setup to include a 'correct' way to provides updates, but just putting a raid-1 in a server, with database replication somewhere else just seems to be less of a hassle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397908</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes no | make oldconfig</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes no | make oldconfig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes no | make oldconfig</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397862</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>DRBD has existed as open source and available in major distros for 10 years</p></div><p>So distros <b>already</b> ship it.  It's just one less patch for the distros to look after, and it sounds like the code got cleaned up a bit as part of the kernel merge.</p><p>For your information:</p><ul> <li>Many kernel features (including DRDB) are available as modules.  So if you don't use them, they don't take up any memory, and don't slow down your system.  The only downside is an extra (unused) module file on disk.</li><li>No-one paying for a Linux distro wants to recompile their kernel.  You lose vendor support, which is why you paid for it in the first place.  You also lose the ability to apply your vendor's kenrel security updates.  For serious company use (not hobbyists) these are big problems.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : DRBD has existed as open source and available in major distros for 10 yearsSo distros already ship it .
It 's just one less patch for the distros to look after , and it sounds like the code got cleaned up a bit as part of the kernel merge.For your information : Many kernel features ( including DRDB ) are available as modules .
So if you do n't use them , they do n't take up any memory , and do n't slow down your system .
The only downside is an extra ( unused ) module file on disk.No-one paying for a Linux distro wants to recompile their kernel .
You lose vendor support , which is why you paid for it in the first place .
You also lose the ability to apply your vendor 's kenrel security updates .
For serious company use ( not hobbyists ) these are big problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:DRBD has existed as open source and available in major distros for 10 yearsSo distros already ship it.
It's just one less patch for the distros to look after, and it sounds like the code got cleaned up a bit as part of the kernel merge.For your information: Many kernel features (including DRDB) are available as modules.
So if you don't use them, they don't take up any memory, and don't slow down your system.
The only downside is an extra (unused) module file on disk.No-one paying for a Linux distro wants to recompile their kernel.
You lose vendor support, which is why you paid for it in the first place.
You also lose the ability to apply your vendor's kenrel security updates.
For serious company use (not hobbyists) these are big problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398878</id>
	<title>2002</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260475020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeBSD users have been doing it for 7 years with the default kernel. I guess that's one reason why it's more popular with companies that depend on HA, such as Bank of America. I love having ZFS as well, the combination is sooooo bad ass<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>For those that run BRDB and want to try it, <a href="http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:TZfYJ5rT7foJ:phaq.phunsites.net/2006/08/11/realtime-file-system-replication-on-freebsd/+raid+replicate+geom&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk" title="74.125.77.132" rel="nofollow">can read this</a> [74.125.77.132].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD users have been doing it for 7 years with the default kernel .
I guess that 's one reason why it 's more popular with companies that depend on HA , such as Bank of America .
I love having ZFS as well , the combination is sooooo bad ass : - ) For those that run BRDB and want to try it , can read this [ 74.125.77.132 ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD users have been doing it for 7 years with the default kernel.
I guess that's one reason why it's more popular with companies that depend on HA, such as Bank of America.
I love having ZFS as well, the combination is sooooo bad ass :-)For those that run BRDB and want to try it, can read this [74.125.77.132].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399222</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1260523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.</p></div><p>So it's great that they don't need, nor they are forced to, have this kernel module in their kernel. And it is also great that, as everyone (including you) has access to the source code, it is possible to cherry pick what feature to have in the OS kernel. Isn't linux awesome?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.</p></div><p>Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.</p></div><p>My guess is not many. But you know what? As it's a kernel module, if a distro doesn't include it then you can include it and if a distro does include it then you can also remove it. Isn't linux awesome?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.</p></div><p>And thankfully that's what linux gives you. More so, even if you don't need it you can also remove it. It's an odd bloat to have, being able to not only remove hand-picked features right out of the OS kernel and but also add them if you see fit. Isn't linux awesome?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really something that the majority of Linux users need , or want compiled into their kernel.So it 's great that they do n't need , nor they are forced to , have this kernel module in their kernel .
And it is also great that , as everyone ( including you ) has access to the source code , it is possible to cherry pick what feature to have in the OS kernel .
Is n't linux awesome ? For them , it 's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.Source , please ?
Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations ? It 'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.My guess is not many .
But you know what ?
As it 's a kernel module , if a distro does n't include it then you can include it and if a distro does include it then you can also remove it .
Is n't linux awesome ? Personally if you need this kind of installation , you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.And thankfully that 's what linux gives you .
More so , even if you do n't need it you can also remove it .
It 's an odd bloat to have , being able to not only remove hand-picked features right out of the OS kernel and but also add them if you see fit .
Is n't linux awesome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.So it's great that they don't need, nor they are forced to, have this kernel module in their kernel.
And it is also great that, as everyone (including you) has access to the source code, it is possible to cherry pick what feature to have in the OS kernel.
Isn't linux awesome?For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.Source, please?
Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.My guess is not many.
But you know what?
As it's a kernel module, if a distro doesn't include it then you can include it and if a distro does include it then you can also remove it.
Isn't linux awesome?Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.And thankfully that's what linux gives you.
More so, even if you don't need it you can also remove it.
It's an odd bloat to have, being able to not only remove hand-picked features right out of the OS kernel and but also add them if you see fit.
Isn't linux awesome?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399400</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260525720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.</p></div><p>
You're an idiot, plain and simple. Being inside the source tree doesn't mean it will bloat the kernel. It's a module, can you grasp the concept? If you don't want it, simply don't compile it and/or load it. There, was that so difficult?
</p><p>
As for not seeing the benefit of being in tree, again, you're an idiot. It is so fucking bleedingly obvious -- being in tree makes it less prone to breakage, if something is introduced to the kernel that breaks that functionality, whoever introduced the change is also responsible for picking up the pieces and supergluing them back together. Being merged into the kernel means it will always work without much effort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I missed where its a module and not " To Be Included in Linux Kernel " as the title implied .
If it 's just a module that 's fine by me .
Just keep it as a module and do n't compile it into the kernel .
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status .
You 're an idiot , plain and simple .
Being inside the source tree does n't mean it will bloat the kernel .
It 's a module , can you grasp the concept ?
If you do n't want it , simply do n't compile it and/or load it .
There , was that so difficult ?
As for not seeing the benefit of being in tree , again , you 're an idiot .
It is so fucking bleedingly obvious -- being in tree makes it less prone to breakage , if something is introduced to the kernel that breaks that functionality , whoever introduced the change is also responsible for picking up the pieces and supergluing them back together .
Being merged into the kernel means it will always work without much effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied.
If it's just a module that's fine by me.
Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel.
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.
You're an idiot, plain and simple.
Being inside the source tree doesn't mean it will bloat the kernel.
It's a module, can you grasp the concept?
If you don't want it, simply don't compile it and/or load it.
There, was that so difficult?
As for not seeing the benefit of being in tree, again, you're an idiot.
It is so fucking bleedingly obvious -- being in tree makes it less prone to breakage, if something is introduced to the kernel that breaks that functionality, whoever introduced the change is also responsible for picking up the pieces and supergluing them back together.
Being merged into the kernel means it will always work without much effort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405110</id>
	<title>Re:Very Useful Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to use a cluster resource manager on top of DRBD. Its a hassle though, poor/confusing/incorrect documentation documentation, some of them have retarded dependencies and are difficult to compile. Our company rolled our crm software and it works, but it took a lot of testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to use a cluster resource manager on top of DRBD .
Its a hassle though , poor/confusing/incorrect documentation documentation , some of them have retarded dependencies and are difficult to compile .
Our company rolled our crm software and it works , but it took a lot of testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to use a cluster resource manager on top of DRBD.
Its a hassle though, poor/confusing/incorrect documentation documentation, some of them have retarded dependencies and are difficult to compile.
Our company rolled our crm software and it works, but it took a lot of testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398356</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's 2010 and Linux *still* has no ZFS or DTrace.  What a joke.</p><p>I am amazed anyone would use Linux for anything other than maybe controlling a toaster.  Even then I wouldn't trust it to not burn the bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 2010 and Linux * still * has no ZFS or DTrace .
What a joke.I am amazed anyone would use Linux for anything other than maybe controlling a toaster .
Even then I would n't trust it to not burn the bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 2010 and Linux *still* has no ZFS or DTrace.
What a joke.I am amazed anyone would use Linux for anything other than maybe controlling a toaster.
Even then I wouldn't trust it to not burn the bread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260458880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you'll be a lot happier, then, eh?  Seriously, there's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements.  So quit wasting your time.  And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason, quit bitching.  It's not like you don't have a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you 'll be a lot happier , then , eh ?
Seriously , there 's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements .
So quit wasting your time .
And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason , quit bitching .
It 's not like you do n't have a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you'll be a lot happier, then, eh?
Seriously, there's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements.
So quit wasting your time.
And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason, quit bitching.
It's not like you don't have a choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a kernel module.  Don't like it, don't load it.</p></div><p>I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied.  If it's just a module that's fine by me.  Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel.  I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.</p><p>A closed mouth gathers no foot.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion? (maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence?)  Go back and read what I wrote.  I did NOT say it was not a useful feature.  I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature.  Big difference.  Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities?</p><p>Stupid obligatory car analogy, if 1\% of the owners smoke it doesn't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays?  No, you simply keep it as an option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a kernel module .
Do n't like it , do n't load it.I missed where its a module and not " To Be Included in Linux Kernel " as the title implied .
If it 's just a module that 's fine by me .
Just keep it as a module and do n't compile it into the kernel .
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status .
" Personally " - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.A closed mouth gathers no foot.I 'm sorry , I 'm not allowed to have an opinion ?
( maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence ?
) Go back and read what I wrote .
I did NOT say it was not a useful feature .
I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature .
Big difference .
Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities ? Stupid obligatory car analogy , if 1 \ % of the owners smoke it does n't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays ?
No , you simply keep it as an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a kernel module.
Don't like it, don't load it.I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied.
If it's just a module that's fine by me.
Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel.
I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.A closed mouth gathers no foot.I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion?
(maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence?
)  Go back and read what I wrote.
I did NOT say it was not a useful feature.
I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature.
Big difference.
Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities?Stupid obligatory car analogy, if 1\% of the owners smoke it doesn't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays?
No, you simply keep it as an option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397520</id>
	<title>what the fuck is this shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260456060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How's the hope and change?  Barack Obama sounds and acts more and more like George Bush on daily basis.  But he's got dark skin and that's all that really matters to a liberal.
<p>
Anyhow, what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's the hope and change ?
Barack Obama sounds and acts more and more like George Bush on daily basis .
But he 's got dark skin and that 's all that really matters to a liberal .
Anyhow , what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's the hope and change?
Barack Obama sounds and acts more and more like George Bush on daily basis.
But he's got dark skin and that's all that really matters to a liberal.
Anyhow, what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401816</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1260547320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications. It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.</i></p><p>Apparently *someone* doesn't understand what kernel modules are.  Hint:  The code *isn't* "compiled in".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , custom kernels work better for most applications .
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that 's been compiled in , and gives you exactly what you want.Apparently * someone * does n't understand what kernel modules are .
Hint : The code * is n't * " compiled in " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications.
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.Apparently *someone* doesn't understand what kernel modules are.
Hint:  The code *isn't* "compiled in".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing it in software for purely virtual hardware is useful.  I know it's been used to sync disks across the network on Xen hosts, the idea being that if the local and remote copies of the disk are kept in close sync, you can migrate a virtual machine with very low latency.  Should be able to do similar tricks with other Linuxy VMMs.  Having software available to do this stuff makes it easy to configure this sort of thing quickly, especially if you're budget-constrained, hardware-wise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing it in software for purely virtual hardware is useful .
I know it 's been used to sync disks across the network on Xen hosts , the idea being that if the local and remote copies of the disk are kept in close sync , you can migrate a virtual machine with very low latency .
Should be able to do similar tricks with other Linuxy VMMs .
Having software available to do this stuff makes it easy to configure this sort of thing quickly , especially if you 're budget-constrained , hardware-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing it in software for purely virtual hardware is useful.
I know it's been used to sync disks across the network on Xen hosts, the idea being that if the local and remote copies of the disk are kept in close sync, you can migrate a virtual machine with very low latency.
Should be able to do similar tricks with other Linuxy VMMs.
Having software available to do this stuff makes it easy to configure this sort of thing quickly, especially if you're budget-constrained, hardware-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398480</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1260467640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A closed mouth gathers no foot.</p></div><p>Nor cunnilingus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A closed mouth gathers no foot.Nor cunnilingus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A closed mouth gathers no foot.Nor cunnilingus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398634</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Premium-wise and billing-wise, we are eighteen percent ahead of last year, October-wise.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Premium-wise and billing-wise , we are eighteen percent ahead of last year , October-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Premium-wise and billing-wise, we are eighteen percent ahead of last year, October-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399366</id>
	<title>Re:Linux FS rocks</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, what stops you from doing the same thing on Linux? Every partition / logic volume can be partitioned again, and so on.</p><p>Maybe I don&rsquo;t get the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , what stops you from doing the same thing on Linux ?
Every partition / logic volume can be partitioned again , and so on.Maybe I don    t get the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, what stops you from doing the same thing on Linux?
Every partition / logic volume can be partitioned again, and so on.Maybe I don’t get the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400432</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to VMS clusters...</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1260539760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a cluster file system, which is something DRDB is not.</p><p>Oh, and yes there are a number of clustered file systems both free and non-free for Linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a cluster file system , which is something DRDB is not.Oh , and yes there are a number of clustered file systems both free and non-free for Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a cluster file system, which is something DRDB is not.Oh, and yes there are a number of clustered file systems both free and non-free for Linux</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397808</id>
	<title>I need your collective advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260458400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Figured you astute Slashdotters could help me out on this one. You see, I work night shift doing help desk work for a (nameless) U.S. cable TV company. It was quiet and my boss was on break. Since I was all alone with no cube-mates I seized the opportunity to "break wind."<p>

Anyhoo, when I did I think I overdid it. I'm 99.9\% sure I shat myself. I can feel the fecal matter streaming down my leg under my work slacks (no casual day until tomorrow).</p><p>

So, what do I do? My boss is back now and keeps checking in on how I'm doing, since I'm a new hire. I'm pretty certain he can smell what's going on. I feel trapped!</p><p>

Has this happened to any of you? Just wondering how I can sneak to the restroom and if I am able to, how I can work around this. No change of clothes here at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Figured you astute Slashdotters could help me out on this one .
You see , I work night shift doing help desk work for a ( nameless ) U.S. cable TV company .
It was quiet and my boss was on break .
Since I was all alone with no cube-mates I seized the opportunity to " break wind .
" Anyhoo , when I did I think I overdid it .
I 'm 99.9 \ % sure I shat myself .
I can feel the fecal matter streaming down my leg under my work slacks ( no casual day until tomorrow ) .
So , what do I do ?
My boss is back now and keeps checking in on how I 'm doing , since I 'm a new hire .
I 'm pretty certain he can smell what 's going on .
I feel trapped !
Has this happened to any of you ?
Just wondering how I can sneak to the restroom and if I am able to , how I can work around this .
No change of clothes here at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figured you astute Slashdotters could help me out on this one.
You see, I work night shift doing help desk work for a (nameless) U.S. cable TV company.
It was quiet and my boss was on break.
Since I was all alone with no cube-mates I seized the opportunity to "break wind.
"

Anyhoo, when I did I think I overdid it.
I'm 99.9\% sure I shat myself.
I can feel the fecal matter streaming down my leg under my work slacks (no casual day until tomorrow).
So, what do I do?
My boss is back now and keeps checking in on how I'm doing, since I'm a new hire.
I'm pretty certain he can smell what's going on.
I feel trapped!
Has this happened to any of you?
Just wondering how I can sneak to the restroom and if I am able to, how I can work around this.
No change of clothes here at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397710</id>
	<title>Oh c'mon now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260457620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I have to say is that this is one of the inherent problems with Linux. Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf files scattered all over the various disk partitions. Even the clean, responsive WIndows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux. You're stuck with some cobbled-together GUI if you're lucky. Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days.
I don't want to edit a hacked-up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf file to get my modem to work, to get my video card's refresh rate correct, or to hear my speaker beep, thank you. I will stick with Windows, which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet.

Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux. After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on them the big boss yelled at him so bad that the poor guy broke down crying and swore he'd never try to push that Linux crap again. Can't say I blame him...</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I have to say is that this is one of the inherent problems with Linux .
Rather than the nice , logical , pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files scattered all over the various disk partitions .
Even the clean , responsive WIndows-type GUI can not be found in Linux .
You 're stuck with some cobbled-together GUI if you 're lucky .
Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days .
I do n't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work , to get my video card 's refresh rate correct , or to hear my speaker beep , thank you .
I will stick with Windows , which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet .
Heck , I remember back a few years ago our company 's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux .
After he found he could n't get the accounting software to work on them the big boss yelled at him so bad that the poor guy broke down crying and swore he 'd never try to push that Linux crap again .
Ca n't say I blame him.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I have to say is that this is one of the inherent problems with Linux.
Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files scattered all over the various disk partitions.
Even the clean, responsive WIndows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux.
You're stuck with some cobbled-together GUI if you're lucky.
Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days.
I don't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work, to get my video card's refresh rate correct, or to hear my speaker beep, thank you.
I will stick with Windows, which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet.
Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux.
After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on them the big boss yelled at him so bad that the poor guy broke down crying and swore he'd never try to push that Linux crap again.
Can't say I blame him...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846</id>
	<title>No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260458760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a kernel module.  Don't like it, don't load it.</p><p>Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant.  There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.</p><p>"it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.</p><p>"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.</p><p>A closed mouth gathers no foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a kernel module .
Do n't like it , do n't load it.Your " requirement " : " something that the majority of Linux users need , or want " is irrelevant .
There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true , probably MOST of them .
" it 's just another layer of complexity " - NOT if you do n't install the userland packages or load the kernel module .
" Personally " - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.A closed mouth gathers no foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a kernel module.
Don't like it, don't load it.Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant.
There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.
"it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.A closed mouth gathers no foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400138</id>
	<title>Re:Oh c'mon now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260536340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf files</p></div></blockquote><p> When one conf file gets corrupted, all others keep working. When one registry gets corrupted (and it does!) your system is hosed beyond repair and you'll need to reinstall the OS. I'd rather have text based config files which allow me to rescue the system, in the unlikely event something bad happens.</p><blockquote><div><p>scattered all over the various disk partitions.</p></div></blockquote><p>False. They're all in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc which is a single partition (by default). Any config files stored with the programs are no more in different partitions than they are on Windows.</p><blockquote><div><p>Even the clean, responsive Windows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux.</p></div></blockquote><p>False. It's been there for years. And did you ever hear about virtual desktops? A killer feature. You should try it sometime. Besides, the GUI is not Windows-type, it's Mac-type.</p><blockquote><div><p>Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days.</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...which was copied from Unix almost verbatim. False, by the way. Most sysadmin tasks can be done through a GUI nowadays. They can almost always be scripted for convenience, if that's more efficient. Unfortunately the same is not true for Windows, so more Windows sysadmins are needed to administer the same amount of users.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't want to edit a hacked-up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf file to get my modem to work</p></div></blockquote><p> Modem? In what decade do you live? Anyway- me neither. I'd rather use my auto-detected gigabit ethernet card, no additional driver installs needed. Also, if I'd have to chose a modem, I'd go for one that is actually, you know, a modem, rather than some dirty hack that lets the CPU do the heavy work.</p><blockquote><div><p>to get my video card's refresh rate correct</p></div></blockquote><p> That's autodetected too.</p><blockquote><div><p>or to hear my speaker beep</p></div></blockquote><p> and that.</p><blockquote><div><p>thank you</p></div></blockquote><p> You're welcome.</p><blockquote><div><p>I will stick with Windows</p></div></blockquote><p>, a closed OS on an open architecture. I'll stick with Linux, an open os on an open architecture. It's about freedom. If you like being locked up, you should try a Mac. Almost all the killer features you speak of are stolen from them.</p><blockquote><div><p>which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet</p></div></blockquote><p> except for MacOS. If you want the power to run on anything from embedded devices to supercomputing clusters, you'll need to run something else.</p><blockquote><div><p>Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux. After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on them</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, it's called vendor lock-in. Get a proper software vendor (one that has a clue about how to make software work on multiple platforms).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than the nice , logical , pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files When one conf file gets corrupted , all others keep working .
When one registry gets corrupted ( and it does !
) your system is hosed beyond repair and you 'll need to reinstall the OS .
I 'd rather have text based config files which allow me to rescue the system , in the unlikely event something bad happens.scattered all over the various disk partitions.False .
They 're all in /etc which is a single partition ( by default ) .
Any config files stored with the programs are no more in different partitions than they are on Windows.Even the clean , responsive Windows-type GUI can not be found in Linux.False .
It 's been there for years .
And did you ever hear about virtual desktops ?
A killer feature .
You should try it sometime .
Besides , the GUI is not Windows-type , it 's Mac-type.Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days .
...which was copied from Unix almost verbatim .
False , by the way .
Most sysadmin tasks can be done through a GUI nowadays .
They can almost always be scripted for convenience , if that 's more efficient .
Unfortunately the same is not true for Windows , so more Windows sysadmins are needed to administer the same amount of users.I do n't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work Modem ?
In what decade do you live ?
Anyway- me neither .
I 'd rather use my auto-detected gigabit ethernet card , no additional driver installs needed .
Also , if I 'd have to chose a modem , I 'd go for one that is actually , you know , a modem , rather than some dirty hack that lets the CPU do the heavy work.to get my video card 's refresh rate correct That 's autodetected too.or to hear my speaker beep and that.thank you You 're welcome.I will stick with Windows , a closed OS on an open architecture .
I 'll stick with Linux , an open os on an open architecture .
It 's about freedom .
If you like being locked up , you should try a Mac .
Almost all the killer features you speak of are stolen from them.which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet except for MacOS .
If you want the power to run on anything from embedded devices to supercomputing clusters , you 'll need to run something else.Heck , I remember back a few years ago our company 's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux .
After he found he could n't get the accounting software to work on themYes , it 's called vendor lock-in .
Get a proper software vendor ( one that has a clue about how to make software work on multiple platforms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files When one conf file gets corrupted, all others keep working.
When one registry gets corrupted (and it does!
) your system is hosed beyond repair and you'll need to reinstall the OS.
I'd rather have text based config files which allow me to rescue the system, in the unlikely event something bad happens.scattered all over the various disk partitions.False.
They're all in /etc which is a single partition (by default).
Any config files stored with the programs are no more in different partitions than they are on Windows.Even the clean, responsive Windows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux.False.
It's been there for years.
And did you ever hear about virtual desktops?
A killer feature.
You should try it sometime.
Besides, the GUI is not Windows-type, it's Mac-type.Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days.
...which was copied from Unix almost verbatim.
False, by the way.
Most sysadmin tasks can be done through a GUI nowadays.
They can almost always be scripted for convenience, if that's more efficient.
Unfortunately the same is not true for Windows, so more Windows sysadmins are needed to administer the same amount of users.I don't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work Modem?
In what decade do you live?
Anyway- me neither.
I'd rather use my auto-detected gigabit ethernet card, no additional driver installs needed.
Also, if I'd have to chose a modem, I'd go for one that is actually, you know, a modem, rather than some dirty hack that lets the CPU do the heavy work.to get my video card's refresh rate correct That's autodetected too.or to hear my speaker beep and that.thank you You're welcome.I will stick with Windows, a closed OS on an open architecture.
I'll stick with Linux, an open os on an open architecture.
It's about freedom.
If you like being locked up, you should try a Mac.
Almost all the killer features you speak of are stolen from them.which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet except for MacOS.
If you want the power to run on anything from embedded devices to supercomputing clusters, you'll need to run something else.Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux.
After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on themYes, it's called vendor lock-in.
Get a proper software vendor (one that has a clue about how to make software work on multiple platforms).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397686</id>
	<title>Re:what the fuck is this shit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260457380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A conservative would have attacked something different - they'd think it was <b>good</b> if Obama acted like Bush!  Only a liberal would call that bad...and write a blistering screed pretending to be a racist right-winger.  Also note the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the well-known malady when otherwise normal people go into unrelated internet comment threads and express off-topic extreme hatred.  Just something to keep slashdot interesting to browse at -1!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A conservative would have attacked something different - they 'd think it was good if Obama acted like Bush !
Only a liberal would call that bad...and write a blistering screed pretending to be a racist right-winger .
Also note the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome , the well-known malady when otherwise normal people go into unrelated internet comment threads and express off-topic extreme hatred .
Just something to keep slashdot interesting to browse at -1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A conservative would have attacked something different - they'd think it was good if Obama acted like Bush!
Only a liberal would call that bad...and write a blistering screed pretending to be a racist right-winger.
Also note the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the well-known malady when otherwise normal people go into unrelated internet comment threads and express off-topic extreme hatred.
Just something to keep slashdot interesting to browse at -1!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400698</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1260541680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should explore that vast environment called 'the real world' sometime.  Try telling your boss at Citibank that you need to rebuild custom kernels for all their Linux machines in the hopes that something will be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\% faster.  When you kiss your RHEL support contract goodbye, you can kiss your job goodbye too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should explore that vast environment called 'the real world ' sometime .
Try telling your boss at Citibank that you need to rebuild custom kernels for all their Linux machines in the hopes that something will be .1 \ % faster .
When you kiss your RHEL support contract goodbye , you can kiss your job goodbye too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should explore that vast environment called 'the real world' sometime.
Try telling your boss at Citibank that you need to rebuild custom kernels for all their Linux machines in the hopes that something will be .1\% faster.
When you kiss your RHEL support contract goodbye, you can kiss your job goodbye too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1260465480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications.  It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Anyone who bitches about it just hasn't had enough practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Actually , custom kernels work better for most applications .
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that 's been compiled in , and gives you exactly what you want .
    Anyone who bitches about it just has n't had enough practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications.
It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.
    Anyone who bitches about it just hasn't had enough practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398782</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260472620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE too, and if you use a SAN you will probably continue to use one of these network block device protocols.
<br> <br>
What DRBD does it make it relatively simple to set up a redundant SAN, using commodity hardware, from which you can export iSCSI devices etc.
<br> <br>
Of course if you are going to use local storage for your VPSs it is just as easy to set DRBD up on those hosts and forgo any network block device layer on top of it. Dual primary mode makes live migration in this scenario particularly convenient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE too , and if you use a SAN you will probably continue to use one of these network block device protocols .
What DRBD does it make it relatively simple to set up a redundant SAN , using commodity hardware , from which you can export iSCSI devices etc .
Of course if you are going to use local storage for your VPSs it is just as easy to set DRBD up on those hosts and forgo any network block device layer on top of it .
Dual primary mode makes live migration in this scenario particularly convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE too, and if you use a SAN you will probably continue to use one of these network block device protocols.
What DRBD does it make it relatively simple to set up a redundant SAN, using commodity hardware, from which you can export iSCSI devices etc.
Of course if you are going to use local storage for your VPSs it is just as easy to set DRBD up on those hosts and forgo any network block device layer on top of it.
Dual primary mode makes live migration in this scenario particularly convenient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398142</id>
	<title>Have people finally woken up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260462600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over five hours and we have an article on Linux and a puzzle and not even 200 posts between them? Have people finally abandoned Slashdork for a real tech site instead of this geek Oprah show wannabe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over five hours and we have an article on Linux and a puzzle and not even 200 posts between them ?
Have people finally abandoned Slashdork for a real tech site instead of this geek Oprah show wannabe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over five hours and we have an article on Linux and a puzzle and not even 200 posts between them?
Have people finally abandoned Slashdork for a real tech site instead of this geek Oprah show wannabe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397996</id>
	<title>Re:I need your collective advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I here you bro.  Went out to taco bell for lunch. A couple hours later, I let off some gas.  Didn't realize it for a couple minutes, but when I shifted, I discovered I was sitting in a pool of liquid shit.  I don't know if it was bad taco meat, or maybe the dude who fucked me in the bathroom used too much lube. Not that I would quit either.  Anyone tried shoving a tampon up your ass?  Maybe that would help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I here you bro .
Went out to taco bell for lunch .
A couple hours later , I let off some gas .
Did n't realize it for a couple minutes , but when I shifted , I discovered I was sitting in a pool of liquid shit .
I do n't know if it was bad taco meat , or maybe the dude who fucked me in the bathroom used too much lube .
Not that I would quit either .
Anyone tried shoving a tampon up your ass ?
Maybe that would help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I here you bro.
Went out to taco bell for lunch.
A couple hours later, I let off some gas.
Didn't realize it for a couple minutes, but when I shifted, I discovered I was sitting in a pool of liquid shit.
I don't know if it was bad taco meat, or maybe the dude who fucked me in the bathroom used too much lube.
Not that I would quit either.
Anyone tried shoving a tampon up your ass?
Maybe that would help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397514</id>
	<title>How does this differ from NBD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260456000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this differ from the Network Block Device (NBD)?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_block\_device" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_block\_device</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this differ from the Network Block Device ( NBD ) ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network \ _block \ _device [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this differ from the Network Block Device (NBD)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_block\_device [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730</id>
	<title>Many ways</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260471720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lot of different ways to get similar results.  You might say I'm cloudy on which of these is really equivalent, is a good idea or the best way to do it, or has good performance.

</p><p>There is <a href="http://www.gluster.org/" title="gluster.org">Gluster</a> [gluster.org] which sits on top of any existing disk file system, via FUSE, I think.  No kernel module needed, only runs a daemon.  I tried version 2, and it worked fine, however I didn't demand much of it.  They've just come out with version 3.0 that doesn't need libfuse anymore.

</p><p>Or there's Lustre, which does need a kernel module, and has its own file system.

</p><p>Are some of the new file systems under development, such as btrfs, going to have distributed, networked operation as a basic feature?  I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines.

</p><p>Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.

</p><p>I haven't heard of NBD before.  Of course there's NFS, which seemingly everyone agrees is slow and obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lot of different ways to get similar results .
You might say I 'm cloudy on which of these is really equivalent , is a good idea or the best way to do it , or has good performance .
There is Gluster [ gluster.org ] which sits on top of any existing disk file system , via FUSE , I think .
No kernel module needed , only runs a daemon .
I tried version 2 , and it worked fine , however I did n't demand much of it .
They 've just come out with version 3.0 that does n't need libfuse anymore .
Or there 's Lustre , which does need a kernel module , and has its own file system .
Are some of the new file systems under development , such as btrfs , going to have distributed , networked operation as a basic feature ?
I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines .
Or we do n't bother with distribution at the file system level because we 're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything , the file systems are distributed too .
I have n't heard of NBD before .
Of course there 's NFS , which seemingly everyone agrees is slow and obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lot of different ways to get similar results.
You might say I'm cloudy on which of these is really equivalent, is a good idea or the best way to do it, or has good performance.
There is Gluster [gluster.org] which sits on top of any existing disk file system, via FUSE, I think.
No kernel module needed, only runs a daemon.
I tried version 2, and it worked fine, however I didn't demand much of it.
They've just come out with version 3.0 that doesn't need libfuse anymore.
Or there's Lustre, which does need a kernel module, and has its own file system.
Are some of the new file systems under development, such as btrfs, going to have distributed, networked operation as a basic feature?
I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines.
Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.
I haven't heard of NBD before.
Of course there's NFS, which seemingly everyone agrees is slow and obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399038</id>
	<title>Re:Linux FS rocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usally here as ive noticed and its happend to me, several time and ive mentioned positive things about linux and that was very true, I didint even get a rateing, bunch of people to busy calling me names, Either slashdot actually got flooded with linux users, and i can see you use linux and it totally is awesome what your talking about, I was gonna post about it under my actual name, but didnt because i figured it would get bashed on, but im sure the older this post gets you'll see tons of that. But im glad to see it got a 5 star rating, it deserves it. just for instance google slashdot and read what it says on the top entry,    Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.    Put a windows section on here and i can post for a entire week about issues with windows, maybe thats why there isnt a windows section, that should give you a hint, In reality geeks wont to here about all operating systems, they really dont care about the issues, they care for what it can do, they dont care about ease of use, and if they cant do it, they will learn. Just to be cleared up Linux is the kernel, theres olot of distros using the kernel, nothing more. argue as you please, for i know this been using linux for years. Just ask linus torvalds, or any developer of a reliable distro and it isnt ubuntu, better yet go in ##slackware and ask them what linux is, put it like this is Slackware a distro of Linux, or is it actually linux. Go to freenode then ##slackware</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usally here as ive noticed and its happend to me , several time and ive mentioned positive things about linux and that was very true , I didint even get a rateing , bunch of people to busy calling me names , Either slashdot actually got flooded with linux users , and i can see you use linux and it totally is awesome what your talking about , I was gon na post about it under my actual name , but didnt because i figured it would get bashed on , but im sure the older this post gets you 'll see tons of that .
But im glad to see it got a 5 star rating , it deserves it .
just for instance google slashdot and read what it says on the top entry , Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues .
Put a windows section on here and i can post for a entire week about issues with windows , maybe thats why there isnt a windows section , that should give you a hint , In reality geeks wont to here about all operating systems , they really dont care about the issues , they care for what it can do , they dont care about ease of use , and if they cant do it , they will learn .
Just to be cleared up Linux is the kernel , theres olot of distros using the kernel , nothing more .
argue as you please , for i know this been using linux for years .
Just ask linus torvalds , or any developer of a reliable distro and it isnt ubuntu , better yet go in # # slackware and ask them what linux is , put it like this is Slackware a distro of Linux , or is it actually linux .
Go to freenode then # # slackware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usally here as ive noticed and its happend to me, several time and ive mentioned positive things about linux and that was very true, I didint even get a rateing, bunch of people to busy calling me names, Either slashdot actually got flooded with linux users, and i can see you use linux and it totally is awesome what your talking about, I was gonna post about it under my actual name, but didnt because i figured it would get bashed on, but im sure the older this post gets you'll see tons of that.
But im glad to see it got a 5 star rating, it deserves it.
just for instance google slashdot and read what it says on the top entry,    Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.
Put a windows section on here and i can post for a entire week about issues with windows, maybe thats why there isnt a windows section, that should give you a hint, In reality geeks wont to here about all operating systems, they really dont care about the issues, they care for what it can do, they dont care about ease of use, and if they cant do it, they will learn.
Just to be cleared up Linux is the kernel, theres olot of distros using the kernel, nothing more.
argue as you please, for i know this been using linux for years.
Just ask linus torvalds, or any developer of a reliable distro and it isnt ubuntu, better yet go in ##slackware and ask them what linux is, put it like this is Slackware a distro of Linux, or is it actually linux.
Go to freenode then ##slackware</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376</id>
	<title>to be honest, i dont really like drbd</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1260466260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont like drbd (though i've used it for a while)... its a massive convoluted and complex mess and fairly inflexible.</p><p>Personally, im hoping dm-replicator gets near completion sometime soon though details of it are rather scarce (i do have a kernel built with the dm-replicator patches, but trying to do anything with it seems near impossible)...</p><p>I do a fair amount of work inside the storage world and drbd is just such a mess in so many ways.</p><p>I sounds very critical and so forth to drbd and thats not the way i mean to come across. What I really am trying to say is that its bloated for the small amount of functionality it does and with a couple of minor tweeks could do much MUCH more. Its a kewl piece of software, but like many FOSS projects has a hideous, weighty config prone to confusion (something you just dont need with DR).</p><p>Still, that is the way it is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont like drbd ( though i 've used it for a while ) ... its a massive convoluted and complex mess and fairly inflexible.Personally , im hoping dm-replicator gets near completion sometime soon though details of it are rather scarce ( i do have a kernel built with the dm-replicator patches , but trying to do anything with it seems near impossible ) ...I do a fair amount of work inside the storage world and drbd is just such a mess in so many ways.I sounds very critical and so forth to drbd and thats not the way i mean to come across .
What I really am trying to say is that its bloated for the small amount of functionality it does and with a couple of minor tweeks could do much MUCH more .
Its a kewl piece of software , but like many FOSS projects has a hideous , weighty config prone to confusion ( something you just dont need with DR ) .Still , that is the way it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont like drbd (though i've used it for a while)... its a massive convoluted and complex mess and fairly inflexible.Personally, im hoping dm-replicator gets near completion sometime soon though details of it are rather scarce (i do have a kernel built with the dm-replicator patches, but trying to do anything with it seems near impossible)...I do a fair amount of work inside the storage world and drbd is just such a mess in so many ways.I sounds very critical and so forth to drbd and thats not the way i mean to come across.
What I really am trying to say is that its bloated for the small amount of functionality it does and with a couple of minor tweeks could do much MUCH more.
Its a kewl piece of software, but like many FOSS projects has a hideous, weighty config prone to confusion (something you just dont need with DR).Still, that is the way it is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398070</id>
	<title>Re:Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260461340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're modules though, the ones that your not using are just taking up space on the hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're modules though , the ones that your not using are just taking up space on the hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're modules though, the ones that your not using are just taking up space on the hard drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30402558</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus christ, how much of a fucking idiot are you?  Modules, kernel configs... learn how the fucking kernel works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus christ , how much of a fucking idiot are you ?
Modules , kernel configs... learn how the fucking kernel works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus christ, how much of a fucking idiot are you?
Modules, kernel configs... learn how the fucking kernel works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397834</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1260458640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good thing the kernel supports modules, so that the 0.1\% of users that use this feature can still have it supported without any performance or memory usage detriment to the other 99.9\% of users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing the kernel supports modules , so that the 0.1 \ % of users that use this feature can still have it supported without any performance or memory usage detriment to the other 99.9 \ % of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing the kernel supports modules, so that the 0.1\% of users that use this feature can still have it supported without any performance or memory usage detriment to the other 99.9\% of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756</id>
	<title>Another networking module... great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260457980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what we need, yet another networking module built into the kernel. Creating a fresh config with the 2.6 series kernels has become even more of a hassle since there are so many modules that are activated by default. To stop the insanity I have to go through and eliminate 90\% of what's there so that 'make modules' doesn't take longer than the kernel proper. Most of them are targeted for special applications and don't need to be in a default build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what we need , yet another networking module built into the kernel .
Creating a fresh config with the 2.6 series kernels has become even more of a hassle since there are so many modules that are activated by default .
To stop the insanity I have to go through and eliminate 90 \ % of what 's there so that 'make modules ' does n't take longer than the kernel proper .
Most of them are targeted for special applications and do n't need to be in a default build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what we need, yet another networking module built into the kernel.
Creating a fresh config with the 2.6 series kernels has become even more of a hassle since there are so many modules that are activated by default.
To stop the insanity I have to go through and eliminate 90\% of what's there so that 'make modules' doesn't take longer than the kernel proper.
Most of them are targeted for special applications and don't need to be in a default build.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398178</id>
	<title>Gentoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260463320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He runs Gentoo you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He runs Gentoo you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He runs Gentoo you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</id>
	<title>Great!  More bloat.</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1260458280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.  For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.  It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.  Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really something that the majority of Linux users need , or want compiled into their kernel .
For them , it 's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for .
It 'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default .
Personally if you need this kind of installation , you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.
For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.
It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.
Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401638</id>
	<title>Re:No bloat, no sense</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1260546480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So..  you have no idea how the linux kernel works  (hint - pretty much everything is a module) yet you somehow feel that you should have an opinion anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. you have no idea how the linux kernel works ( hint - pretty much everything is a module ) yet you somehow feel that you should have an opinion anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So..  you have no idea how the linux kernel works  (hint - pretty much everything is a module) yet you somehow feel that you should have an opinion anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399498</id>
	<title>Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260527280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about?   Tru64 has nothing that functions like DRBD and never has.  You need to re-read what DRBD actually does because you're getting confused.   Also, 15 years ago Tru64 was only 1 year old, only it wasn't Tru64 back then it was DEC OSF/1 and it was really quite crude and buggy compared to the Tru64 in circulation today. So you would not have had a very spectacular experience with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
Tru64 has nothing that functions like DRBD and never has .
You need to re-read what DRBD actually does because you 're getting confused .
Also , 15 years ago Tru64 was only 1 year old , only it was n't Tru64 back then it was DEC OSF/1 and it was really quite crude and buggy compared to the Tru64 in circulation today .
So you would not have had a very spectacular experience with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
Tru64 has nothing that functions like DRBD and never has.
You need to re-read what DRBD actually does because you're getting confused.
Also, 15 years ago Tru64 was only 1 year old, only it wasn't Tru64 back then it was DEC OSF/1 and it was really quite crude and buggy compared to the Tru64 in circulation today.
So you would not have had a very spectacular experience with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397880</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call em crazy, but are there not things like modules. The modules are then either not installed or not linked into the kernel unless they are actually needed.</p><p>As you stated it really up to the distributions. Having it be part of the mainline kernel makes less work for me and I would imagine the distributors as well. I can update my systems without having to spend my time worrying about compiling that third party module.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call em crazy , but are there not things like modules .
The modules are then either not installed or not linked into the kernel unless they are actually needed.As you stated it really up to the distributions .
Having it be part of the mainline kernel makes less work for me and I would imagine the distributors as well .
I can update my systems without having to spend my time worrying about compiling that third party module .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call em crazy, but are there not things like modules.
The modules are then either not installed or not linked into the kernel unless they are actually needed.As you stated it really up to the distributions.
Having it be part of the mainline kernel makes less work for me and I would imagine the distributors as well.
I can update my systems without having to spend my time worrying about compiling that third party module.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397858</id>
	<title>Re:Great! More bloat.</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1260458940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a layer, it's a module.  Even if distros compile it, the result is just an extra driver file in the directory.  It is only loaded if you need it.  How does that add any bloat?</p><p>Even at a source code level, it is completely self contained in a directory, other than a couple of one-line changes to tell the build system to compile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a layer , it 's a module .
Even if distros compile it , the result is just an extra driver file in the directory .
It is only loaded if you need it .
How does that add any bloat ? Even at a source code level , it is completely self contained in a directory , other than a couple of one-line changes to tell the build system to compile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a layer, it's a module.
Even if distros compile it, the result is just an extra driver file in the directory.
It is only loaded if you need it.
How does that add any bloat?Even at a source code level, it is completely self contained in a directory, other than a couple of one-line changes to tell the build system to compile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399036</id>
	<title>Re:Many ways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.</p><p>Exactly the reason *FOR* DRBD.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we do n't bother with distribution at the file system level because we 're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything , the file systems are distributed too.Exactly the reason * FOR * DRBD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.Exactly the reason *FOR* DRBD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638</id>
	<title>Very Useful Software</title>
	<author>bflong</author>
	<datestamp>1260457080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use DRBD for some very mission critical servers that require total redundancy. Combined with Heartbeat I can fail over from one server to another without any single point of failure. We've been using it for more then 5 years, and never had any major issues with it. It will be great to have it in the mainline kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use DRBD for some very mission critical servers that require total redundancy .
Combined with Heartbeat I can fail over from one server to another without any single point of failure .
We 've been using it for more then 5 years , and never had any major issues with it .
It will be great to have it in the mainline kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use DRBD for some very mission critical servers that require total redundancy.
Combined with Heartbeat I can fail over from one server to another without any single point of failure.
We've been using it for more then 5 years, and never had any major issues with it.
It will be great to have it in the mainline kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405526</id>
	<title>Re:Very Useful Software</title>
	<author>Richard\_J\_N</author>
	<datestamp>1260562440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're also very happy with it. I have a RAIS array of two servers each with RAID1. So our Postgres database is configured on a quadruple-backup setup thus:</p><p>Postgres<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/lib/postgresql<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/drbd1<br>primary server  ---  secondary server<br>raid 1               raid 1<br>2 x X25-E SSD        2 x X25-E SSD</p><p>The servers are connected back to back by a direct gigabit ethernet link, and we use DRBD in protocol B (memory synchronous).<br>Thus all transactions are guaranteed to hit the disk, we get fast performance, and excellent reliability.<br>Cutover from one machine to the other is really easy, and takes 2 minutes. The docs for DRBD are also very good.</p><p>There are 2 things to note:<br>
&nbsp; * Write bandwidth this way is about half what it could be with a single server.<br>
&nbsp; * Avoid the risk of "split-brain" at all costs. For us, this means a manual failover process: dataloss is very bad, but a few minutes of downtime is acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're also very happy with it .
I have a RAIS array of two servers each with RAID1 .
So our Postgres database is configured on a quadruple-backup setup thus : Postgres /var/lib/postgresql /dev/drbd1primary server --- secondary serverraid 1 raid 12 x X25-E SSD 2 x X25-E SSDThe servers are connected back to back by a direct gigabit ethernet link , and we use DRBD in protocol B ( memory synchronous ) .Thus all transactions are guaranteed to hit the disk , we get fast performance , and excellent reliability.Cutover from one machine to the other is really easy , and takes 2 minutes .
The docs for DRBD are also very good.There are 2 things to note :   * Write bandwidth this way is about half what it could be with a single server .
  * Avoid the risk of " split-brain " at all costs .
For us , this means a manual failover process : dataloss is very bad , but a few minutes of downtime is acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're also very happy with it.
I have a RAIS array of two servers each with RAID1.
So our Postgres database is configured on a quadruple-backup setup thus:Postgres /var/lib/postgresql /dev/drbd1primary server  ---  secondary serverraid 1               raid 12 x X25-E SSD        2 x X25-E SSDThe servers are connected back to back by a direct gigabit ethernet link, and we use DRBD in protocol B (memory synchronous).Thus all transactions are guaranteed to hit the disk, we get fast performance, and excellent reliability.Cutover from one machine to the other is really easy, and takes 2 minutes.
The docs for DRBD are also very good.There are 2 things to note:
  * Write bandwidth this way is about half what it could be with a single server.
  * Avoid the risk of "split-brain" at all costs.
For us, this means a manual failover process: dataloss is very bad, but a few minutes of downtime is acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30404664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30402558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0048247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398782
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399446
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30402558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398330
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30401816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30400698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30398142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0048247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30397638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30399134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30404664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0048247.30405526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
