More DRBD Performance tests

I’ve previously written Some Notes on DRBD [1] and a post about DRBD Benchmarking [2].

Previously I had determined that replication protocol C gives the best performance for DRBD, that the batch-time parameters for Ext4 aren’t worth touching for a single IDE disk, that barrier=0 gives a massive performance boost, and that DRBD gives a significant performance hit even when the secondary is not connected. Below are the results of some more tests of delivering mail from my Postal benchmark to my LMTP server which uses the Dovecot delivery agent to write it to disk, the rates are in messages per minute where each message is an average of 70K in size. The ext4 filesystem is used for all tests and the filesystem features list is “has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype extent flex_bg sparse_super large_file huge_file uninit_bg dir_nlink extra_isize“.

The al-extents option determines the size of the dirty areas that need to be resynced when a failed node rejoins the cluster. The default is 127 extents of 4M each for a block size of 508MB to be synchronised. The maximum is 3389 for a synchronisation block size of just over 13G. Even with fast disks and gigabit Ethernet it’s going to take a while to synchronise things if dirty zones are 13GB in size. In my tests using the maximum size of al-extents gives a 10% performance benefit in disconnected mode while a size of 1024 gives a 4% performance boost. Changing the al-extents size seems to make no significant difference for a connected DRBD device.

All the tests on connected DRBD devices were done with 100baseT apart from the last one which was a separate Gigabit Ethernet cable connecting the two systems.

Conclusions

For the level of traffic that I’m using it seems that Gigabit Ethernet provides no performance benefit, the fact that it gave a slightly lower result is not relevant as the difference is within the margin of error.

Increasing the al-extents value helps with disconnected performance, a value of 1024 gives a 4% performance boost. I’m not sure that a value of 3389 is a good idea though.

The ext4 barriers are disabled by DRBD so a disconnected DRBD device gives performance that is closer to a barrier=0 mount than a regular ext4 mount. With the significant performance difference between connected and disconnected modes it seems possible that for some usage scenarios it could be useful to disable the DRBD secondary at times of peak load – it depends on whether DRBD is used as a really current backup or a strict mirror.

Future Tests

I plan to do some tests of DRBD over Linux software RAID-1 and tests to compare RAID-1 with and without bitmap support. I also plan to do some tests with the BTRFS filesystem, I know it’s not ready for production but it would still be nice to know what the performance is like.

But I won’t use the same systems, they don’t have enough CPU power. In my previous tests I established that a 1.5GHz P4 isn’t capable of driving the 20G IDE disk to it’s maximum capacity and I’m not sure that the 2.8GHz P4 is capable of running a RAID to it’s capacity. So I will use a dual-core 64bit system with a pair of SATA disks for future tests. The difference in performance between 20G IDE disks and 160G SATA disks should be a lot less than the performance difference between a 2.8GHz P4 and a dual-core 64bit CPU.

• [1] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2011/12/17/drbd-notes/
• [2] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2012/01/05/drbd-benchmarking/

Related posts:

1. DRBD Benchmarking I’ve got some performance problems with a mail server that’s...
2. Some Notes on DRBD DRBD is a system for replicating a block device across...
3. Ethernet bonding Bonding is one of the terms used to describe multiple...

Syndicated 2012-02-08 13:24:03 from etbe - Russell Coker

5 Principles of Backup Software

Everyone agrees that backups are generally a good thing. But it seems that there is a lot less agreement about how backups should work. Here is a list of 5 principles of backup software that seem to get ignored most of the time:

(1/5) Backups should not be Application Specific

It’s quite reasonable for people to want to extract data from a backup on a different platform. Maybe someone will want to extract data a few decades after the platform becomes obsolete. I believe that vendors of backup software have an ethical obligation to make it possible for customers to get their data out with minimal effort regardless of the circumstances.

Often when writing a backup application there will be good reasons for not using the existing formats for data storage (tar, cpio, zip, etc). But ideally any data store which involves something conceptually similar to a collection of files in one larger file will use one of those formats. There have been backward compatible extensions to tar and zip for SE Linux contexts and for OS/2 EAs – the possibility of extending archive file formats with no consequence other than warnings on extraction with an unpatched utility has been demonstrated.

For a backup which doesn’t involve source files (EG the contents of some sort of database) then it should be in a format that can be easily understood and parsed. Well designed XML is generally a reasonable option. Generally the format should involve plain text that is readable and easy to understand which is optionally compressed with a common compression utility (pkzip is a reasonable choice).

(2/5) Data Store Formats should be Published

For every data store there should be public documentation about it’s format to allow future developers to write support for it. It really isn’t difficult to release some commented header files so that people can easily determine the data structures. This includes all data stores including databases and filesystems. If I suddenly find myself with a 15yo image of a NTFS filesystem containing a proprietary database I should be able to find official header files for the version of NTFS and the database server in question so I can decode the data if it’s important enough.

When an application vendor hides the data formats it gives the risk of substantial data loss at some future time. Imposing such risk on customers to try and prevent them from migrating to a rival product is unethical.

(3/5) Backups should be forward and backward compatible

It is entirely unreasonable for a vendor to demand that all their users install the latest versions of their software. There are lots of good reasons for not upgrading which includes hardware not supporting new versions of the OS, lack of Internet access to perform the upgrade, application compatibility, and just liking the way the old version works. Even for the case of a critical security fix it should be possible to restore data without applying the fix.

For any pair of versions of software that are only separated by a few versions it should be possible to backup data from one and restore to the other. Even if the data can’t be used directly (EG a backup of AMD64 programs that is restored on an i386 system) it should still be accessible. If a new version of the software doesn’t support the ancient file formats then it should be possible for the users to get a slightly older version which talks to both the old and new versions.

Backups made on 64bit systems running the latest development version of Linux and on 10yo 32bit proprietary Unix systems are interchangeable. Admittedly Unix is really good at preserving file format compatibility, but there is no technical reason why other systems can’t do the same. Source code to cpio, tar, and gnuzip, is freely available!

Apple TimeMachine fails badly in this regard, even a slightly older version of Mac OS can’t do a restore. It is however nice that most of the TimeMachine data is a tree of files which could be just copied to another system.

(4/5) Backup Software should not be Dropped

Sony Ericsson has made me hate them even more by putting the following message on their update web site:

The Backup and Restore app will be overwritten and cannot be used to restore data. Check out Android Market for alternative apps to back up and restore your data, such as MyBackup.

So if you own a Sony Ericsson phone and it is lost, stolen, or completely destroyed and all you have is a backup made by the Sony Ericsson tool then the one thing you absolutely can’t do is to buy a new Sony Ericsson phone to restore the data.

I believe that anyone who releases backup software has an ethical obligation to support restoring to all equivalent systems. How difficult would it be to put a new free app in the Google Market that has as it’s sole purpose recovering old Sony Ericsson backups onto newer phones? It really can’t be that difficult, so even if they don’t want to waste critical ROM space by putting the feature in all new phones they can make it available to everyone who needs it. When compared to the cost of developing a new Android release for a series of phones the cost of writing such a restore program would be almost nothing.

It is simply mind-boggling that Sony Ericsson go against their own commercial interests in this regard. Surely it would make good business sense to be able to sell replacements for all the lost and broken Sony Ericsson phones, but instead customers who get burned by broken backups are given an incentive to buy a product from any other vendor.

(5/5) The greater the control over data the greater the obligation for protecting it

If you have data stored in a simple and standard manner (EG the /DCIM directory containing MP4 and JPEG files that is on the USB accessible storage in every modern phone) then IMHO it’s quite OK to leave customers to their own devices in terms of backups. Typical users can work out that if they don’t backup their pictures then they risk losing them, and they can work out how to do it.

My Sony Ericsson phones have data stored under /data (settings for Android applications) which is apparently only accessible as root. Sony Ericsson have denied me root access which prevents me running backup programs such as Titanium Backup, therefore I believe that they have a great obligation to provide a way of making a backup of this data and restoring it on a new phone or a phone that has been updated. To just provide phone upgrade instructions which tell me that my phone will be entirely wiped and that I should search the App Market for backup programs is unacceptable.

I believe that there are two ethical options available to Sony Ericsson at this time, one is to make it easy to root phones so that Titanium Backup and similar programs can be used, and the other option is to release a suitable backup program for older phones. Based on experience I don’t expect Sony Ericsson to choose either option.

Now it is also a bad thing for the Android application developers to make it difficult or impossible to backup their data. For example the Wiki for one Android game gives instructions for moving the saved game files to a new phone which starts with “root your phone”. The developers of that game should have read the Wiki, realised that rooting a phone for the mundane task of transferring saved game files is totally unreasonable, and developed a better alternative.

The best thing for developers to do is to allow the users to access their own data in the most convenient manner. Then it becomes the user’s responsibility to manage it and they can concentrate on improving their application.

Why Freedom is Important

Installing CyanogenMod on my Galaxy S was painful, but having root access so I can do anything I want is a great benefit. If phone vendors would do the right thing then I could recommend that other people use the vendor release, but it seems that vendors can be expected to act unethically. So I can’t recommend that anyone use an un-modded Android phone at any time. I also can’t recommend ever buying a Sony Ericsson product, not even when it’s really cheap.

Google have done a great thing with their Data Liberation Front [1]. Not only are they providing access to the data they store on our behalf (which is a good thing) but they have a mission statement that demands the same behavior from other companies – they make it an issue of competitive advantage! So while Sony Ericsson and other companies might not see a benefit in making people like me stop hating them, failing to be as effective in marketing as Google is a real issue. Data Liberation is something that should be discussed at board elections of IT companies.

Keep in mind the fact that ethics are not just about doing nice things, they are about establishing expectations of conduct that will be used by people who deal with you in future. Sony Ericsson has shown that I should expect that they will treat the integrity of my data with contempt and I will keep this in mind every time I decline an opportunity to purchase their products. Google has shown that they consider the protection of my data as an important issue and therefore I can be confident when using and recommending their services that I won’t get stuck with data that is locked away.

While Google has demonstrated that corporations can do the right thing, the vast majority of evidence suggests that we should never trust a corporation with anything that we might want to retrieve when it’s not immediately profitable for the corporation. Therefore avoiding commercial services for storing important data is the sensible thing to do.

• [1] http://www.dataliberation.org/

Related posts:

1. Galaxy S vs Xperia X10 and Android Network Access Galaxy S Review I’ve just been given an indefinite loan...
2. Standardising Android Don Marti wrote an amusing post about the lack of...
3. On Burning Platforms Nokia is in the news for it’s CEO announcing that...

Syndicated 2012-02-07 07:26:04 from etbe - Russell Coker

Reliability of RAID

ZDNet has an insightful article by Robin Harris predicting the demise of RAID-6 due to the probability of read errors [1]. Basically as drives get larger the probability of hitting a read error during reconstruction increases and therefore you need to have more redundancy to deal with this. He suggests that as of 2009 drives were too big for a reasonable person to rely on correct reads from all remaining drives after one drive failed (in the case of RAID-5) and that in 2019 there will be a similar issue with RAID-6.

Of course most systems in the field aren’t using even RAID-6. All the most economical hosting options involve just RAID-1 and RAID-5 is still fairly popular with small servers. With RAID-1 and RAID-5 you have a serious problem when (not if) a disk returns random or outdated data and says that it is correct, you have no way of knowing which of the disks in the set has good data and which has bad data. For RAID-5 it will be theoretically possible to reconstruct the data in some situations by determining which disk should have it’s data discarded to give a result that passes higher level checks (EG fsck or application data consistency), but this is probably only viable in extreme cases (EG one disk returns only corrupt data for all reads).

For the common case of a RAID-1 array if one disk returns a few bad sectors then probably most people will just hope that it doesn’t hit something important. The case of Linux software RAID-1 is of interest to me because that is used by many of my servers.

Robin has also written about some NetApp research into the incidence of read errors which indicates that 8.5% of “consumer” disks had such errors during the 32 month study period [2]. This is a concern as I run enough RAID-1 systems with “consumer” disks that it is very improbable that I’m not getting such errors. So the question is, how can I discover such errors and fix them?

In Debian the mdadm package does a monthly scan of all software RAID devices to try and find such inconsistencies, but it doesn’t send an email to alert the sysadmin! I have filed Debian bug #658701 with a patch to make mdadm send email about this. But this really isn’t going to help a lot as the email will be sent AFTER the kernel has synchronised the data with a 50% chance of overwriting the last copy of good data with the bad data! Also the kernel code doesn’t seem to tell userspace which disk had the wrong data in a 3-disk mirror (and presumably a RAID-6 works in the same way) so even if the data can be corrected I won’t know which disk is failing.

Another problem with RAID checking is the fact that it will inherently take a long time and in practice can take a lot longer than necessary. For example I run some systems with LVM on RAID-1 on which only a fraction of the VG capacity is used, in one case the kernel will check 2.7TB of RAID even when there’s only 470G in use!

The BTRFS Filesystem

The btrfs Wiki is currently at btrfs.ipv5.de as the kernel.org wikis are apparently still read-only since the compromise [3]. BTRFS is noteworthy for doing checksums on data and metadata and for having internal support for RAID. So if two disks in a BTRFS RAID-1 disagree then the one with valid checksums will be taken as correct!

I’ve just done a quick test of this. I created a filesystem with the command “mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/vg0/raid?” and copied /dev/urandom to it until it was full. I then used dd to copy /dev/urandom to some parts of /dev/vg0/raidb while reading files from the mounted filesystem – that worked correctly although I was disappointed that it didn’t report any errors, I had hoped that it would read half the data from each device and fix some errors on the fly. Then I ran the command “btrfs scrub start .” and it gave lots of verbose errors in the kernel message log telling me which device had errors and where the errors are. I was a little disappointed that the command “btrfs scrub status .” just gave me a count of the corrected errors and didn’t mention which device had the errors.

It seems to me that BTRFS is going to be a much better option than Linux software RAID once it is stable enough to use in production. I am considering upgrading one of my less important servers to Debian/Unstable to test out BTRFS in this configuration.

BTRFS is rumored to have performance problems, I will test this but don’t have time to do so right now. Anyway I’m not always particularly concerned about performance, I have some systems where reliability is important enough to justify a performance loss.

BTRFS and Xen

The system with the 2.7TB RAID-1 is a Xen server and LVM volumes on that RAID are used for the block devices of the Xen DomUs. It seems obvious that I could create a single BTRFS filesystem for such a machine that uses both disks in a RAID-1 configuration and then use files on the BTRFS filesystem for Xen block devices. But that would give a lot of overhead of having a filesystem within a filesystem. So I am considering using two LVM volume groups, one for each disk. Then for each DomU which does anything disk intensive I can export two LVs, one from each physical disk and then run BTRFS inside the DomU. The down-side of this is that each DomU will need to scrub the devices and monitor the kernel log for checksum errors. Among other things I will have to back-port the BTRFS tools to CentOS 4.

This will be more difficult to manage than just having an LVM VG running on a RAID-1 array and giving each DomU a couple of LVs for storage.

BTRFS and DRBD

The combination of BTRFS RAID-1 and DRBD is going to be a difficult one. The obvious way of doing it would be to run DRBD over loopback devices that use large files on a BTRFS filesystem. That gives the overhead of a filesystem in a filesystem as well as the DRBD overhead.

It would be nice if BTRFS supported more than two copies of mirrored data. Then instead of DRBD over RAID-1 I could have two servers that each have two devices exported via NBD and BTRFS could store the data on all four devices. With that configuration I could lose an entire server and get a read error without losing any data!

Comparing Risks

I don’t want to use BTRFS in production now because of the risk of bugs. While it’s unlikely to have really serious bugs it’s theoretically possible that as bug could deny access to data until kernel code is fixed and it’s also possible (although less likely) that a bug could result in data being overwritten such that it can never be recovered. But for the current configuration (Ext4 on Linux software RAID-1) it’s almost certain that I will lose small amounts of data and it’s most probable that I have silently lost data on many occasions without realising.

• [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-6-stops-working-in-2019/805
• [2] http://storagemojo.com/2008/02/18/latent-sector-errors-in-disk-drives/
• [3] http://btrfs.ipv5.de/

Related posts:

1. Some RAID Issues I just read an interesting paper titled An Analysis of...
2. ECC RAM is more useful than RAID A common myth in the computer industry seems to be...
3. Software vs Hardware RAID Should you use software or hardware RAID? Many people claim...

Syndicated 2012-02-05 14:46:36 from etbe - Russell Coker

A Computer Conference on a Cruise Ship

After LCA [1] there was a discussion about possible locations for future conferences, most of the messages in the discussion were jokes or suggestions that don’t seriously apply to LCA. So I’ll add my suggestion for conferences other than LCA.

I’ve previously written generally about the issue of conferences at sea [2]. I don’t think that LCA would be suitable for running at sea because delegates have specific expectations for LCA which are quite different to what a cruise ship can offer, so I don’t think it makes sense to change LCA which is working well as it is. However there are lots of other possible computer conferences which could suite a cruise ship.

Price

Price is a major factor in running a conference, so obviously getting a cheap cruise price is very important. Here is a link for Vacations To Go which shows cruises from the Australia/NZ region which are of at least 5 nights and cost no more than $800 [3]. The cheapest entry at this moment is $609 for 5 nights and the cheapest on a per-night basis is an 8 night cruise for $779. The cheapest cruise currently on offer which allows a conference similar to LCA is 7 nights for $699. The prices should be regarded as rough approximations as some cruises have some mandatory extra fees and the prices are quoted in US dollars and subject to currency fluctuations. Note that those prices are for dual-occupancy cabins, this can be a “double” or a “twin” configuration. Some cruise ships have cabins for 3 or 4 people that are cheaper, but if you have a cabin for a single person then the rate is almost the same as for having two people.

The price for LCA accommodation including breakfast was $78 per night for a single room or $92 for a double room. Then lunch cost a minimum of $10 and for dinner there was $80 for the penguin dinner and probably about $20 for dinner every other night. That gave an overall cost for a 6 night stay (which is probably the minimum for someone who lives further away than Melbourne) in Ballarat of 6*78+6*10+5*20+80==$708. For a double room that would be 6*92+6*10+5*20+2*80==$872.

Even if we don’t count the fact that the Australian dollar is worth more than the US dollar it is obvious that on the basis of accommodation and food two people sharing a twin cabin on a cruise ship could pay LESS than two people in single rooms at the Ballarat University dorms! Now sharing a cabin isn’t so great, but the upside is that cruise ships have excellent food and lots of other entertainment options. I previously reviewed the food on the Dawn Princess and determined that it’s better than the food I would expect to get if I spent the cost of the cruise on dinner at land based restaurants [4].

I have been led to believe that the use of ship conference facilities is typically free for any organisation that books a sufficient number of cabins. So there’s no reason why the conference admission fees should be any greater than for a land based conference.

Advantages

A common problem with conferences is finding suitable dining options. Most people want to eat with other delegates but finding restaurants that have sufficient space and which are conveniently located is difficult at best and often impossible. On a cruise ship everything is within a short walk and the restaurants are big, usually be at least one restaurant will hold 500 people. The fact that you have to reserve times for the “Main Dining Room” makes it more difficult to miss one’s colleagues.

Everything on a cruise ship is luxurious.

There are lots of good locations for BoFs, pools, cafes, restaurants, and bars. Basically the ship is filled with comfortable places for groups of people to sit down.

A cruise ship typically has a main theater with more than 700 seats – more than large enough for most conferences I’ve attended. It’s common for the size of a conference to be limited to the size of the main theater that is used, for a cruise ship this will probably be less of a problem than for most other conference venues.

Disadvantages

The first disadvantage of running a computer conference on a cruise ship is the almost total lack of net access. The costs for net access are more expensive than most delegates will pay. Probably many delegates would check their email but it wouldn’t be practical for people to download source code, browse Wikipedia, and use the Internet in other ways related to the conference. It would be practical to have mirrors of Wikipedia, the source of several distributions of Linux, and other big things of common interest.

Another possible problem is the fact that you need to book it well in advance to avoid the risk of selling out (there is no option to stay at a different hotel). An established conference with financial backing could just pay to reserve the cabins. But when starting a new conference this could be a problem.

Alcohol is rather expensive on cruise ships. But getting really drunk isn’t compatible with learning about computer science anyway.

Finally the requirement to have at least two people in a cabin for good rates is a serious issue. The upside of this is that people travelling with their SO would find that it works really well (regardless of whether the SO is a delegate or not). But anyone who’s not travelling with their SO and doesn’t want to share with a friend will have to either pay a lot more or skip the conference.

Conclusion

I think that there is a good potential for running a computer conference around the Australia/NZ region on a cruise ship. It won’t be overly expensive for delegates and the facilities that are provided are good. The trade-off for solitary travelers of having to share a cabin (or pay more) for getting much better food and leisure facilities will be appreciated by many people (and admittedly hated by some).

Some people won’t appreciate the option of swimming, but even if you consider the cruise ship to be just a floating collection of restaurants and cabins it’s still fairly luxurious and beats the heck out of most conferences I’ve attended.

If you are considering the possibility of running a conference then I think that a cruise ship should be considered. VacationsToGo.com is the best site I’ve found for cheap cruise prices, their large group department has experience handling groups of more than 500 people so I think that anyone who wants to run a new conference in/around Australia should give them a call.

Also cruise ships travel around the world, so the same thing can be done in other countries but at a different time of year. The economic factors will differ by country though. Cruise ships probably aren’t a cheap option for a conference in some other countries.

• [1] http://www.linux.conf.au/
• [2] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2011/11/17/cruises/
• [3] http://www.vacationstogo.com/ticker.cfm?r=15&md=5&mp=800
• [4] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2012/01/08/my-first-cruise/

Related posts:

1. My First Cruise A few weeks ago I went on my first cruise,...
2. Cruises It seems that in theory cruises can make for quite...
3. Creating a Micro Conference The TEDxVolcano The TED conference franchise has been extended to...

Syndicated 2012-02-03 11:17:16 from etbe - Russell Coker

Links January 2012

Cops in Tennessee routinely steal cash from citizens [1]. They are ordered to do so and in some cases their salary is paid from the cash that they take. So they have a good reason to imagine that any large sum of money is drug money and take it.

David Frum wrote an insightful article for NY Mag about the problems with the US Republican Party [2].

TreeHugger.com has an interesting article about eco-friendly features on some modern cruise ships [3].

Dan Walsh describes how to get the RSA SecureID PAM module working on a SE Linux system [4]. It’s interesting that RSA was telling everyone to turn off SE Linux and shipping a program that was falsely marked as needing an executable stack and which uses netstat instead of /dev/urandom for entropy. Really the only way RSA could do worse could be to fall victim to an Advanced Persistent Attack… :-#

The Long Now has an interesting summary of a presentation about archive.org [5]. I never realised the range of things that archive.org stores, I will have to explore that if I find some spare time!

Jonah Lehrer wrote a detailed and informative article about the way that American high school students receive head injuries playing football[6]. He suggests that it might eventually be the end of the game as we know it.

François Marier wrote an informative article about optimising PNG files [7], optipng is apparently the best option at the moment but it doesn’t do everything you might want.

Helen Keeble wrote an interesting review of Twilight [8]. The most noteworthy thing about it IMHO is that she tries to understand teenage girls who like the books and movies. Trying to understand young people is quite rare.

Jon Masters wrote a critique of the concept of citizen journalism and described how he has two subscriptions to the NYT as a way of donating to support quality journalism [9]. The only comment on his post indicates a desire for biased news (such as Fox) which shows the reason why most US media is failing at journalism.

Luis von Ahn gave an interesting TED talk about crowd-sourced translation [10]. He starts by describing CAPTCHAs and the way that his company ReCAPTCHA provides the CAPTCHA service while also using people’s time to digitise books. Then he describes his online translation service and language education system DuoLingo which allows people to learn a second language for free while translating text between languages [11]. One of the benefits of this is that people don’t have to pay to learn a new language and thus poor people can learn other languages – great for people in developing countries that want to learn first-world languages! DuoLingo is in a beta phase at the moment but they are taking some volunteers.

Cory Doctorow wrote an insightful article for the Publishers Weekly titles “Copyrights vs Human Rights” [12] which is primarily about SOPA.

Naomi Wolf wrote an insightful article for The Guardian about the “Occupy” movement, among other things the highest levels of the US government are using the DHS as part of the crackdown [13]. Naomi’s claim is that the right-wing and government attacks on the Occupy movement are due to the fact that they want to reform the political process and prevent corruption.

John Bohannon gave an interesting and entertaining TED talk about using dance as part of a presentation [14]. He gave an example of using dancerts to illustrate some concepts related to physics and then spoke about the waste of PowerPoint.

Joe Sabia gave an amusing and inspiring TED talk about the technology of storytelling [15]. He gave the presentation with live actions on his iPad to match his words, a difficult task to perform successfully.

Thomas Koch wrote an informative post about some of the issues related to binary distribution of software [16]. I think the problem is evenm worse than Thomas describes.

• [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg4ArbQpsIU
• [2] http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
• [3] http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/7-ocean-friendly-eco-cruises-hitting-the-high-seas.html
• [4] http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/48571.html
• [5] http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/nov/30/universal-access-all-knowledge/
• [6] http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7443714/jonah-lehrer-concussions-adolescents-future-football
• [7] http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/2011/12/optimising-png-files.html
• [8] http://www.helenkeeble.com/2011/08/08/repost-what-i-thought-about-twilight
• [9] http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/11/30/on-citizen-journalism/
• [10] http://www.ted.com/talks/luis_von_ahn_massive_scale_online_collaboration.html
• [11] http://duolingo.com/
• [12] http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20111205/49728-cory-doctorow-copyrights-vs-human-rights.html
• [13] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy
• [14] http://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_proposal.html
• [15] http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_sabia_the_technology_of_storytelling.html
• [16] http://www.koch.ro/blog/index.php?/archives/153-On-distributing-binaries.html

Related posts:

1. Links January 2011 Halla Tomasdottir gave an interesting TED talk about her financial...
2. Links January 2010 Magnus Larsson gave an interesting TED talk about using bacteria...
3. Links January 2009 Jennifer 8 Lee gave an interesting TED talk about the...

Syndicated 2012-01-26 01:49:56 from etbe - Russell Coker