Monday, October 24, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 24 08:40AM

>> you love me, or I will lock you up in a torture cellar I built myself,
>> and torture you there forever"?
 
> You have it backwards.
 
No, I don't. According to your own religion, your god created
everything, including hell, and it's he who sends people to hell
for not loving him enough, to be mercilessly tortured for all
eternity, and once there, there is no possibility of redemption.
 
In other words, your god is a psychopath. And I'm not using that
just as a random insult. That's *exactly* the act of a psychopath.
 
Imagine there were a person who is an absolute monster, who has
done unspeakable evil to you, and you hate with every fiver of
your being. You hate that person so much that you would want him
to be punished and tortured in the worst possible way. But, there's
a caveat: You must witness that torture. 24/7, as long as it goes on.
You must constantly watch the torture and suffering.
 
No matter how much you might hate that person, no matter how much
you might enjoy watching the torture at first, if you are a normal
healthy person at some point it will be too much. Enough will be
enough. Be it weeks, months or years, but at some point you will
just ask for it to be stopped. If you have the alternative to just
make that person cease to exist, at some point you will ask for that.
 
Except if you are a psychopath. That's because psychopaths have the
inability to feel empathy. A psychopath could watch someone get tortured
forever, and they would never get tired of it, they would never empathize,
and they would never feel pity.
 
That's your god. He would watch people be mercilessly tortured for all
eternity, doing nothing about it. Not only that, but it was he himself
who created hell and sends people there. And he is ever omnipresent,
and can see and feel every second of that merciless torture being
applied to those people. And he just watches, for all eternity, without
ever stopping it.
 
Your god is a sick psychopath, and deserves utter contempt and disgust.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 24 05:15AM -0700

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 4:40:34 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> applied to those people. And he just watches, for all eternity, without
> ever stopping it.
 
> Your god is a sick psychopath, and deserves utter contempt and disgust.
 
Unless you have experience being the God of the entire universe, including
those things unseen in our physical world today, unless you are a person
who has never made a mistake and knows all things, unless you are a person
who is able to know what it's like to be ruler over trillions and trillions
of living beings (man, angels), each of whom are the equivalent of gods
(lowercase "g" in their abilities and power, then would you please at least
leave room for the possibility that your few-decades of experience in this
wretched Earth with all its disease, hate, war, and death, could've possibly
tainted your viewpoint slightly to where you think you know things about God,
but that you don't really know and are simply seeing Him through tainted
eyes?
 
Is there room in your assessment of God, of man, of the universe, for the
remote possibility that you could be wrong, Juha?
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Oct 24 02:17PM +0200

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 05:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
> the remote possibility that you could be wrong, Juha?
 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
Same question for you...
 
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 24 05:23AM -0700

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > Is there room in your assessment of God, of man, of the universe, for
> > the remote possibility that you could be wrong, Juha?
 
> Same question for you...
 
When I believed as Juha did, I was convinced I was right. It took me
searching the truth, and God flipping that inner switch which allowed
me to then know the truth. And when I asked forgiveness for my sin and
was born again, the change occurred within me.
 
I now know for certainty who God is, who Jesus Christ is, and I accept
on faith those things He has told us because of the long list of things
I am able to test and prove out, He has proven Himself to be 100% correct,
and on the things I cannot prove out they are in line with what one would
expect in considering such things.
 
Consider this:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/hebrews/11.htm
 
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.
 
Through the born again nature, God Himself affirms things we cannot know
in the flesh. It's what I keep trying to teach you (that we are dead in
sin, that we cannot see spiritual things until God begins to draw us, and
until we are born again).
 
There is more to our existence than what our eyes see, and our minds think.
It goes far beyond that into invisible thing, spiritual things, and that is
the real life, the eternal life, whereas this life is only temporal.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 24 12:58PM

> tainted your viewpoint slightly to where you think you know things about God,
> but that you don't really know and are simply seeing Him through tainted
> eyes?
 
So you want me to believe in your clearly psychopathic, evil god,
just in the hopes that perhaps, maybe, not only does he exist, but
maybe he isn't so obviusly evil as your theology seems to imply?
 
Sorry, but no. Even if there were 100% certain proof beyond any
doubt that he existed, I wouldn't worship him. He's an evil psychopath
who not only causes endless suffering of people due to criminal
negligence, but moreover punishes people with infinite torment for
the simple reason that they don't believe in him, or love him in
the right way.
 
Luckily no such god exists, which is good.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 24 06:10AM -0700

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:58:57 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> negligence, but moreover punishes people with infinite torment for
> the simple reason that they don't believe in him, or love him in
> the right way.
 
I want you to hold out possibility that you are wrong today, and
that something in your life may come about to change your thinking
in a way that today you could not imagine, but on the other side
of the change you'll stand there with your mouth hanging open and
say to yourself, "I would never have believed it if it didn't happen
to me."
 
Why do I ask you for this? Because it's exactly what happened to
me. It's exactly what happens to many people who were staunch
atheists before they came to faith. God changes a person such that
they then see correctly through spiritual eyes, and not natural
eyes.
 
It's why this song lyric exists:
 
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now I'm found,
Was blind, but now I see.
 
"Was blind, but now I see." God changes a person THAT much, Juha.
And it demonstrates how literally blind/lost we are BECAUSE of sin.
 
'twas Grace that taught,
my heart to fear.
And grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear,
the hour I first believed.
 
From the first hour, we see then our sin, we see then the grace God's
given us to keep from destroying us despite our wickedness. Not just
"man's wickedness," but our personal ongoing day-in/day-out wickedness.
 
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come.
'tis grace that brought me safe thus far,
and grace will lead us home.
 
God's been active in our lives day-in/day-out, even when we didn't
believe in Him. There's a movie about this you could watch:
 
The Encounter (2010):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdurzFWPPA
 
And when we learn more about God:
 
The Lord has promised good to me,
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
as long as life endures.
 
Because Jesus died, and resurrected, we now will live with Him.
 
When we've been there ten thousand years,
bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise,
than when we first begun.
 
And it is eternal.
 
-----
The words of that song were written by a man named John Newton. He
was a vile slave trader who God worked on over many years to the
point where his life completely changed and he went back to England
trying to get the slave trade to end. He became a pastor and lived
out the remainder of his days in service to the Lord, even when his
body began to fail on him.
 
We are more than this flesh, Juha. We are also spirit. But because
of sin we are spiritually dead today. It's why Jesus teaches that we
must be "born again" (of the spirit, John 3). When we are born of
the spirit, then we are no longer flesh-only, and we receive the truth
of God through that spirit, and He then teaches us the truth our flesh
could not receive, because the truth of God is spirit, not flesh,
which is why you cannot know it today.
 
-----
We are more than this flesh, and it is within the "more" we don't
currently possess that the knowledge of God, and the surety of Him
comes from. We cannot know as we are born, but only as God enables
us by changing us from within to give us the drawing, and ultimately,
the born again nature.
 
Please don't just discount people who have had conversion experiences,
who have come to be born again. There are too many for it to be so
easily dismissed. Seek the truth, and you will find the truth of why
so many have come to faith in Jesus Christ, and proclaim His name even
today in this world we live in. It's not for nothing, I assure you.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 24 07:18AM -0700

On Monday, 24 October 2016 16:10:45 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> of the change you'll stand there with your mouth hanging open and
> say to yourself, "I would never have believed it if it didn't happen
> to me."
 
Intelligent people among us know that we are ignorant and that we
are wrong. Also we know that same will continue in future. How can
finding out such simple truism be jaw dropping? It may happen that
this universe has creator despite that we believe there are none.
So you claim you were all-knowing unintelligent asshole? Can it be
that you have never stopped being one?

It won't be jaw dropping news. Yes, finding out that the creator
of this universe made it for torturing here someone for eternity for
whatever sin would be surprize to me. I can't love nor worship such
beings anyway. So I continue to believe that those perversions
are lies and ugsome fruits of sick fantasies of you and your ilk.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 24 07:56AM -0700

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:19:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
 
> Intelligent people among us know that we are ignorant and that we
> are wrong. Also we know that same will continue in future. How can
> finding out such simple truism be jaw dropping?
 
The jaw dropping component was how I had known myself to be a particular
way for 34 years, and when I came to faith in Jesus Christ how much
everything changed.
 
Flowers were beautiful. Squirrels scampering were beautiful. And
whereas I had always thought they were beautiful, they were now beautiful
in a new way. It's as if the black-and-white imagery I had seen before
had now been turned up into full color, even though my eyes were still
seeing it the same way, there was something on the inside which saw
these things anew. It was stunning. It was breathtaking. And it was
totally jaw dropping. And it didn't happen all at once overnight. I
observed these changes for years, and still continue to do so 12+ years
later.
 
> this universe has creator despite that we believe there are none.
> So you claim you were all-knowing unintelligent .. ? Can it be
> that you have never stopped being one?
 
I claim that I was very intelligent, well thought out, and that I had
a good handle on a great many things. I claim that I did not know
everything, and would tell people the same, but that I was also
convinced that a person didn't need God in order to live a good and
decent life. And I was convinced I was right about that because I
saw people do it every day ... from every faith ... from every walk
of life ... from every economic position. Some people simply "chose
to be good" in my book, and they made it happen.
 
What I couldn't see then was that even in my "goodness" I was still a
sinner. I couldn't see my sin as sin because I was just being like
everybody else (more or less), and I thought I was just an average
"good guy."
 
It took the eyes of faith to show me where I was horrid, and the
extent to which I was horrid. And most people wouldn't have looked
at my life and said, "Ooh, Rick, that's horrid." They would've been
doing the same things, and we would've been having fun doing them.
But through God's eyes, through His Holy Spirit living inside my heart
speaking to me from the inside out, I was able to see the heinous
things I was doing for what they were. And I repented. I ran away
from them because it was so obvious. And there were countless times
I stood in front of the mirror weeping, absolutely weeping like a
parent who had just lost their child, over my sin.
 
God gives you new vision to see things as He sees them, not as the
inertia of your former life has you believe them, or as society
would regard them, but as they truly are.
 
> whatever sin would be surprize to me. I can't love nor worship such
> beings anyway. So I continue to believe that those perversions
> are lies and ugsome fruits of sick fantasies of you and your ilk.
 
You will stand before God in one of two ways:
 
(1) Forgiven, to which you have nothing to fear.
(2) Unforgiven, to which you will quake to your bones.
 
Ever been to the principal's office? Or in a court of law where the
judge has the authority to radically alter your life? The kind of
internal pressure you feel in such situations does not compare to
any sort of aspect of what it will be like standing before God ready
to be judged for the entirety of your life.
 
The Bible records there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I
have always concluded weeping over the knowledge that it was all
real, and that you knew it in your heart but you denied it, and now
you see it and you know how beautiful God is, how beautiful eternity
is, and how you will never have a part of any of it because you
would not receive it. And gnashing of teeth over being so angry at
yourself for holding on to sin rather than following after the truth,
for holding on to Earthly things rather than considering eternal
things ... because on that side of death, when you stand before God,
you will be stripped of your sinful flesh, your sin nature, you
ability to lie and cheat and steal away against the truth. In that
state you will be fully cognizant of the truth, and it will burn
through you like a laser beam.
 
Nobody will strut before God. Every knee will bow, and every
tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all to the glory of
God the Father in Heaven. If you do so here on Earth you receive
salvation for your eternal soul. If you do so only in Heaven, then
you receive condemnation, such that after you bow the knee, and
after you make your confession, strong angels come and take hold of
you and carry you to the precipice of the lake of fire and toss you
headlong into it, such that the last thing written in the book of you
will be, "[Name] was then cast into the lake of fire."
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/philippians/2-10.htm
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
 
God has exalted Jesus to this point for this purpose! He has exalted
Him to be Lord over all because of who He is, and to defeat the devil
who had come to destroy God's creation. He accomplished His goals,
but all of those who have defected and would not return to Him in His
Kingdom, they are now lost just as Satan is.
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/20.htm
 
The Final Judgment
 
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from
whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was
found no place for them.
 
The Earth and Heaven were fleeing from His face. Do you think you
will be able to stand before Him? No. You will quake and shiver
like a scared-to-the-core little girl because you will know your sin,
and what it means eternally.
 
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the
books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book
of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works.
 
We are judged by our own choices, our own actions, our own words.
 
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
judged every man according to their works.
 
All people, past, present, future, up to the time of this final great
white throne judgment.
 
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
second death.
 
There is a temporary death that holds people. The Bible describes it as
a sleep that comes over those who die before the endmost times. They "go
to sleep" and then time passes with them unaware, such that they then
wake up when summoned by name by God to answer for their life.
 
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast
into the lake of fire.
 
This is the most frightening part. Nobody comes back from that casting
in. IT'S WHY I SPEND ALL OF THIS TIME TEACHING YOU THESE THINGS.
 
Nobody has to go there. Jesus will save EVERYBODY. All you have to do
is humble yourself, acknowledge your sin, repent of your sin, ask Him
to forgive your sin, and He does. There are no mountains to climb, no
valleys to cross, no feats of physical skill or intellectual prowess.
Just a humble acknowledgement that you are a sinner, and that you need
to be forgiven.
 
How could God make it any easier and still give you a choice? What more
could He do to give you the opportunity to save your eternal soul? He
only wants you to be aware of your sin, turn away from it, and ask Him
to forgive you.
 
It is the enemy of God, Satan, and all his demon imps, who are feeding
your mind with anti-God thoughts, anti-God sentiments, anti-God feelings.
It is that enemy who is the real enemy, as he is luring you to abandon
any thoughts of coming to Jesus Christ by an earthly enticement of sin
in some way. The sin of pride so that you won't admit you're wrong or
that you need a savior. The sin of being better than me, so that you
can think you're superior to my obvious stupidity in believing such a
thing. The sin of inertia in your life and not wanting to lose the
things you have because if you turn to Jesus Christ you'll have to cut
out this, and that, and the other thing, etc. And so many other sin
temptations.
 
Jesus is worth all we lose. And what we gain is so much more than we
lost. It's my testimony to you, and everybody here. There's even a
song people have written about it based on a Bible verse sung by the
angels in Heaven with a single voice:
 
"Worthy is the Lamb"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gae-n0Pb7Q
 
Jesus is called "The Lamb of God" because He took our pain and shame
away, and gave us His free gift of righteousness, and eternal life.
 
There is no greater gift ... and it is only the enemy who is tricking
you into believing lies about Him, such that you will then through
your own choices toward pride and sin, keep you from coming to Him to
be forgiven so that you too are lost just as his sorry self is.
 
There is victory in Jesus Christ. Real victory. Eternal victory.
The kind that never fades away, but rather lives in total triumph
eternally.
 
No greater gift.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 24 09:31AM -0700

On Monday, 24 October 2016 17:56:20 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> (2) Unforgiven, to which you will quake to your bones.
 
> Ever been to the principal's office? Or in a court of law where the
> judge has the authority to radically alter your life?
 
The school principals I've met were all good people so I can't
compare them with evil god. I don't claim being saint but I have
never been accused in any crimes in court. I don't fear that I will
and won't panic even if I would be accused since I know I have
done nothing criminal and believe that good people will protect
me.
The only thing that I can fear is that some (religious or otherwise)
idiots may hurt or kill someone I love by accident or in desperation
to please their evil fantasy Gods or what not.
 
> internal pressure you feel in such situations does not compare to
> any sort of aspect of what it will be like standing before God ready
> to be judged for the entirety of your life.
 
What pressures? Who deserves life-time punishment for being
wrong? I can't still imagine that I love evil gods, sorry. It is repulsive!
I won't even make attempt to be hypocrite and to pretend that I
will.
 
> ability to lie and cheat and steal away against the truth. In that
> state you will be fully cognizant of the truth, and it will burn
> through you like a laser beam.
 
How sinister and evil you sound. Brrr. What you worship there?
The demons are indeed envious of flesh I've read. But that is also
mysticism. I have seen dead people. Their "sinful flesh" wasn't
carried anywhere to be "stripped". It was dead. Lifeless. On some
cases it was burned on some cases it was buried by other people.
 
> you and carry you to the precipice of the lake of fire and toss you
> headlong into it, such that the last thing written in the book of you
> will be, "[Name] was then cast into the lake of fire."
 
Yes they toss me into lake of fire and sulfur but you will live happily
with your ugsome god on shore of that lake in paradise of pleasures
and glory. I feel sad that you have such fantasies but people are
different, sorry.
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 24 08:52AM

I know, I know, this is not a question about the C++ language, but
a question about a library (and a C library at that). I know this is
a great faux pas. But the thing is, I would ask this in a relevant
group, or online forum, if there existed one. But as far as I can
gather, there is no such thing. There is no online forum for libpng
questions. (There is a mailing list yes, but this is not 1995 anymore,
mailing lists are a really antiquated and inconvenient form of
discussion, and I really am not willing to have my mail inbox be flooded
with irrelevant things because of this one question. It seems that
the libpng team is still living in 1995. Just look at their official
home page if you don't believe me.) There doesn't even seem to exist
a usenet group with the letters "png" in its name (at least not on
this news server).
 
So I was wondering if anybody here with expertise about libpng could
cast some light on this.
 
If I open a png file, do some modifications to its pixel data, and
then save it to another file, is there a way to transfer all metadata
from the input file to the output file? I'm assuming that all the
metadata is stored in the png_info struct, but according to the
documentation (in plain txt format; because we are still in 1995)
the png_info struct has to be created anew using a different png_struct
object for writing, than it was done for reading. I don't know if its
kosher to take the same png_info that was created for reading and use
it for writing.
 
The second question is how to make a copy of a png_info object.
I can't find any function to do that. (Since this is a C library,
not a C++ one, even if you could assign what png_infop points to,
to another instance, that would probably lead to leaks. But even
that's not possible because png_infop is an opaque pointer.)
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 24 07:52AM -0700

On Monday, 24 October 2016 11:53:05 UTC+3, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> object for writing, than it was done for reading. I don't know if its
> kosher to take the same png_info that was created for reading and use
> it for writing.
 
I think the "metadata" is something you write with 'png_write_chunk'
and handler function for that chunk during reading you set with
something like 'png_set_read_user_chunk_fn'
 
> not a C++ one, even if you could assign what png_infop points to,
> to another instance, that would probably lead to leaks. But even
> that's not possible because png_infop is an opaque pointer.)
 
AFAIK we create one for reading and other for writing and don't
copy those.
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Oct 24 09:25AM -0700

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:53:05 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> home page if you don't believe me.) There doesn't even seem to exist
> a usenet group with the letters "png" in its name (at least not on
> this news server).
 
Beggars can't be choosers. Their page looks good.
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 23 07:47PM -0400

On 10/23/2016 3:08 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> unusual (although not unheard of).
 
> Pretty much every RAID configuration reads from all the dives. Any form
> of parity RAID *has* to read from all the drives.
 
That is a standard RAID 1 configuration, used when read reliability is
required. And by default, most configurations do NOT read from both
disks - they only read from the second disk when there is a problem with
the first disk.
 
Many NAS backup devices use RAID 1.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 24 01:40PM +1300

On 10/24/16 12:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> required. And by default, most configurations do NOT read from both
> disks - they only read from the second disk when there is a problem with
> the first disk.
 
That's not a common configuration. I've seen systems that support
round-robin as well as first out, but I can't recall seeing one that
suppresses reads of one drive. I'd be interested in a link. It would
also be a great way of hiding drive corruption...
 
One of the benefits form using a mirror is the improved read IOP
performance (can be up to double that of one drive given the right data).
 
--
Ian
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 23 10:06PM -0400

On 10/23/2016 8:40 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> also be a great way of hiding drive corruption...
 
> One of the benefits form using a mirror is the improved read IOP
> performance (can be up to double that of one drive given the right data).
 
It's quite common in high availability systems. The beauty of RAID1 is
you can add as many disks as you want, and everything will work as long
as even one of the drives is ok. And it ensures data is still
available, even if one of a two-drive RAID system fails completely.
 
There is no reason why it should hide drive corruption. Just because
data isn't being returned to the requester does not mean the data on the
drive isn't being validated. Not that you would understand how that
could occur.
 
I already know you know nothing about RAID-1, because you have claimed
it is "unusual (but not unheard of)". Many NAS backup devices use it,
for instance, even on small systems. It's probably the most common
configuration for SOHO NAS backup devices.
 
But I know you'll argue with that, also. That's who you are. And like
David, you will never admit you are wrong.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>: Oct 23 07:35PM -0700

>> least, that is my impression.)
 
> If you apt-get it in binary form from standard repository then it is
> included...
 
Apparently you mean something different by "included"
than I do.
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 24 05:15PM +1300

On 10/24/16 03:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> you can add as many disks as you want, and everything will work as long
> as even one of the drives is ok. And it ensures data is still
> available, even if one of a two-drive RAID system fails completely.
 
I never said mirroring was uncommon, I said only reading from one half
of the mirror is uncommon and that's why I asked for a link to a
controller that supports that mode of operation.
 
--
Ian
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 24 08:34AM -0400

On 10/24/2016 12:15 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
 
> I never said mirroring was uncommon, I said only reading from one half
> of the mirror is uncommon and that's why I asked for a link to a
> controller that supports that mode of operation.
 
And once again you show you don't know what you're talking about. But
I'm not going to bother to get a link for you. You'll just argue with
that also, like you have before. You'll argue with anything I say
rather than admit you are wrong.
 
Go crawl back into your hole, troll.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 24 03:43PM +0200

On 24/10/16 04:06, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> you can add as many disks as you want, and everything will work as long
> as even one of the drives is ok. And it ensures data is still
> available, even if one of a two-drive RAID system fails completely.
 
We all know what RAID 1 means. That has never been the issue. It is
your claim that "most configurations do not read from both disks" that
is contended.
 
> data isn't being returned to the requester does not mean the data on the
> drive isn't being validated. Not that you would understand how that
> could occur.
 
I can think of several ways for a RAID system to spot some kinds of
drive corruption while normally only providing data from one disk. But
some types of corruption or failures will be spotted faster if you read
from it regularly (such as for an average of half the accesses) rather
than relying on failures during write, or scrub passes.
 
> it is "unusual (but not unheard of)". Many NAS backup devices use it,
> for instance, even on small systems. It's probably the most common
> configuration for SOHO NAS backup devices.
 
RAID-1 is extremely common - we know that. But most RAID-1 systems that
I know of will normally balance reads from both drives unless you have
specifically configured them in an unusual way. Random reads generally
come from the drive that has the data nearest to hand, to minimise
latency. Large streamed reads may use both disks, or may come from just
one disk (in which case the other disk will be used for other read
accesses that are done in parallel).
 
I am sure it is possible that there are some poor quality hardware raid
cards that only read from one drive, and maybe you are only familiar
with these. But the small NAS systems you refer to invariably use
either Linux md raid, FreeBSD gmirror, FreeBSD ZFS or (on a few models)
Linux btrfs. All of these support reading from both disks at once by
default - you have to use more advanced options to make a disk "write
mostly", and NAS interfaces usually do not support such options.
 
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 24 10:02AM -0400

On 10/24/2016 9:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
> mostly", and NAS interfaces usually do not support such options.
 
>> But I know you'll argue with that, also. That's who you are. And like
>> David, you will never admit you are wrong.
 
I have the same comment to you as I did to Ian. You've already proven
you will argue with anything I say, so I'm not going to waste my time
trying to show you the real world.
 
You really need to educate yourself on how many RAID 1 systems work.
Reading from one drive increases reliability by decreasing the number of
operations to the other drive. And with RAID 1, reliability is more
critical than speed. But I know you'll argue with that, also.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 24 04:19PM +0200

On 24/10/16 16:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
> Reading from one drive increases reliability by decreasing the number of
> operations to the other drive. And with RAID 1, reliability is more
> critical than speed. But I know you'll argue with that, also.
 
Yes, I certainly /would/ argue it - if there were any point. I know
that /you/ won't listen, and I know that Ian and probably anyone else
here who cares already knows how RAID-1 systems work and why they work
that way.
 
So you can now go back to your own little Jerry-world where everything
is different from the rest of reality (and least, reality in this
century). And feel free to have the last insult about singing pigs, or
to tell us again how you were using RAID at IBM long before any of the
rest of us were born.
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 24 10:51AM -0400

On 10/24/2016 10:19 AM, David Brown wrote:
> century). And feel free to have the last insult about singing pigs, or
> to tell us again how you were using RAID at IBM long before any of the
> rest of us were born.
 
Yes, David - like you argued that PC's don't have buses, fiber optic
cables don't suffer from multiple paths (modes), devices in a PC operate
in a token ring fashion... and these just in the last couple of weeks.
You even tried to argue that a wire can have multiple voltages on it,
proving that you don't even know a voltmeter (a device that specifically
measures voltages) measures at a specific point. Even an apprentice
electrician knows that!
 
Your "arguments" do nothing but continue to show your ignorance. Maybe
you should bow to experience - something you repeatedly show you have
none of.
 
I am willing to be nice to people who want to learn. But I will not
waste my time on the likes of you and Ian, who will argue anything, even
when you are proven to know nothing about the subject.
 
But that happens when you've successfully snowed people for years, and
someone who is actually competent comes along. It threatens your power.
 
I'm sorry you have such an inferiority complex that you have to
continually try to prove yourself - even though you are actually doing
just the opposite.
 
Now I suggest you run along and learn how RAID really works.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 24 05:23PM +0200

On 24/10/16 16:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> to tell us again how you were using RAID at IBM long before any of the
>> rest of us were born.
 
> Yes, David - like you argued that PC's don't have buses
 
No one argued that. Someone (not me) wrote about processor
architectures, and you misunderstood.
 
, fiber optic
> cables don't suffer from multiple paths (modes),
 
I didn't write that. I wrote that they do not suffer from frequency
dependent effects to the same extent as copper cables - and again, you
misunderstood.
 
devices in a PC operate
> in a token ring fashion...
 
No one wrote that. Someone (not me) mentioned token ring, and you
misunderstood.
 
and these just in the last couple of weeks.
 
You really are /extraordinarily/ bad at reading, and understanding. And
you are happy to present this sort of argument, when anyone reading it
can easily go back a few posts and check your nonsense.
 
You are wasted as a "consultant" - you should have been a politician.
 
> You even tried to argue that a wire can have multiple voltages on it,
 
Which is correct, and which you agreed with - because the voltage can be
different at different points on the wire.
 
> proving that you don't even know a voltmeter (a device that specifically
> measures voltages) measures at a specific point. Even an apprentice
> electrician knows that!
 
I do know about voltmeters (though I did not write about them in any
previous post), and I know that they measure the voltage at a particular
point - and are therefore useless for measuring the different voltages
along a wire carrying a high speed signal.
 
 
> Your "arguments" do nothing but continue to show your ignorance. Maybe
> you should bow to experience - something you repeatedly show you have
> none of.
 
I will let others be the judge of that.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 23 10:07PM -0700

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:22:44 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Umm ... yes.
 
> boost::fast_pool_allocator can offer better performance over
> std::allocator when it uses a mutex (default)
 
I don't think so. I ran the test below (Windows 10, vc140), and the results
were
 
(std_allocator) 3356 milliseconds
(boost_allocator) 5949 milliseconds
 
As an aside, from the boost docs, "The underlying singleton_pool used by the
[boost::fast_pool_allocator] allocator constructs a pool instance that is never
freed."
 
#include <boost/pool/pool_alloc.h>
#include <map>
#include <chrono>
 
using std::chrono::high_resolution_clock;
using std::chrono::time_point;
using std::chrono::duration;
 
struct book
{
std::string author;
std::string title;
double price;
};
 
using boost_allocator = boost::fast_pool_allocator<std::pair<size_t,book>>;
using std_allocator = std::allocator<std::pair<size_t, book>>;
using map1 = std::map<size_t, book, std::less<size_t>, std_allocator>;
using map2 = std::map<size_t, book, std::less<size_t>, boost_allocator>;
 
int main()
{
book book1{ "Haruki Murakami", "Kafka on the Shore", 25.17 };
size_t count = 10000000;
 
{
map1 booklist;
auto start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
{
booklist.insert(std::make_pair(i, book1));
}
auto end = high_resolution_clock::now();
auto elapsed = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count();
std::cout << "(std_allocator) " << elapsed << " milliseconds" << std::endl;
 
}
 
{
map2 booklist;
auto start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
{
booklist.insert(std::make_pair(i, book1));
}
auto end = high_resolution_clock::now();
auto elapsed = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count();
std::cout << "(boost_allocator) " << elapsed << " milliseconds" << std::endl;
}

return 0;
}
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 23 04:49PM -0700

Check out this nice presentation from synchronization genius: Paul E.
McKenney
 
https://cppcon2016.sched.org/paulmckrcu
 
https://youtu.be/qcD2Zj9GgI4
 
 
And an excellent presentation by the very smart Anthony Williams:
 
https://youtu.be/FaHJOkOrfNo
 
 
I can code RCU in C++! Nice...
 
;^D
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)