f



Virtex4: I don't understand their thinking....

So after looking at the Virtex4 line of devices and their associated
features
(http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=v4_asmbl), I'm a
little miffed at their chip resource allocation.

First of all, suppose I'm planning on filling an FPGA full of logic. I'm
probably going to run the majority of that logic in the same clock domain so
I don't need a whole lot of DCMs. However, I do need some way to get my data
to/from the chip. What's up with zero transceivers on the "logic platform"?
The same can be asked of the "signal processing platform". I was so looking
forward to getting away from the old parallel I/O issues, and if I'm going
to have to deal with that, maybe we better leave those DCMs on there. It
wouldn't take very many transceivers to alleviate the issue.

Second, what about those of us who build and prototype digital bus
controllers, routers, and similar applications. In that situation I'm
looking for an FPGA with lots of memory, lots of transceivers, lots of DCMs,
a fair amount of logic, and not much else. DSP and Processors don't really
help me in that type of application, yet to get what I need I will end up
spending the extra money for the FX chip.


0
Brannon
6/10/2004 6:36:38 PM
comp.arch.fpga 18546 articles. 2 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
324 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 47

Brannon, wait until Xilinx releases the real details, and I am sure you
will like them.
There is a lot of flexibility in the I/O on all Virtex-4 families.
As to the large number of global clock lines and DCMs, Xilinx must to
cater to a wide range of customers, and some need them. If you need
less, you can always leave them unused, but if you need more than are
available, you (and we) would have a serious problem.

DSP circuits can be used for many other functions than DSP.  :-)
Be patient...
Peter Alfke


Brannon King wrote:
> 
> So after looking at the Virtex4 line of devices and their associated
> features
> (http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=v4_asmbl), I'm a
> little miffed at their chip resource allocation.
> 
> First of all, suppose I'm planning on filling an FPGA full of logic. I'm
> probably going to run the majority of that logic in the same clock domain so
> I don't need a whole lot of DCMs. However, I do need some way to get my data
> to/from the chip. What's up with zero transceivers on the "logic platform"?
> The same can be asked of the "signal processing platform". I was so looking
> forward to getting away from the old parallel I/O issues, and if I'm going
> to have to deal with that, maybe we better leave those DCMs on there. It
> wouldn't take very many transceivers to alleviate the issue.
> 
> Second, what about those of us who build and prototype digital bus
> controllers, routers, and similar applications. In that situation I'm
> looking for an FPGA with lots of memory, lots of transceivers, lots of DCMs,
> a fair amount of logic, and not much else. DSP and Processors don't really
> help me in that type of application, yet to get what I need I will end up
> spending the extra money for the FX chip.
0
Peter
6/10/2004 4:36:31 PM
I bet the answer you get from Xilinx will be along the lines of "we analysed
X number of designs from our customer base and found these three to be the
best fit (to maximise our profits)". They won't actually say the bit in
parentheses, but that's what they're in business for. Fair enough.
I guess the 'new' architecture makes it somewhat easier to add further
variants. After all, they've only used three letters (LSF) so far, that
leaves space for 23 more mixes! ;-)
I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
reconfiguration a reality.
cheers, Syms.


0
Symon
6/10/2004 4:48:27 PM
Brannon,

Well, one can either say the glass is half full, or half empty.

In an extensive survey of customers, we organized the Virtex 4 family 
into the LX, FX, and SX.

The idea was pretty simple:  we have a lot of customers today who do not 
use the MGTs, and want more logic for less cost(LX).  They feel that 
they could have a lower cost solution if we did not put MGTs and 405PPCs 
in the chip (which they end up not using).

Then there are those that like the MGTs.  They have found that the MGTs 
go well with the 405PPCs, and those that like the PPCs often find use 
for the MGTs.  The logic and BRAM has to be sufficient to balance these 
applications out, so the FX family is targeted for those folks.

Then there are the DSP folks, (who quite frankly are happy with no one 
and nothing!).  They want humongous amounts of DSP specific 
functionality (logic?  who needs logic?).  The SX family is intended for 
them.  If we wished to add the MGTs to the SX family, then we have to 
ask, do they also need 405PPCs (as the two go together very well in 
talking to users).  Maybe they do?  Maybe they should?

Three major families.

If there is a significant demand for a hybrid of the feature sets, well, 
talk to us about it.  With ASMBL, it can be done without moving heaven 
and earth.  But remember that we supply a general purpose solution (now 
three general purpose solutions) so the chip has to have an almost 
universal appeal to a market segment, or it is not worth the effort to 
do it.

As for clocks, I am happy to hear you only use one clock, but consensus 
is that we need to supply more global (and local) clocks with increasing 
   numbers of CLBs to meet our customers' requirements.

Prototyping ASICs is no longer our "big" business.  In fact, it has 
gotten progressively smaller over the years as ASICs get progressively 
more difficult to do at all.  We love when people just have to have the 
largest parts we make, however.

If the mask for the next ASIC costs $2 million, then the cost (price) of 
the FX vs. the LX is not an issue anyway.

Austin

Brannon King wrote:
> So after looking at the Virtex4 line of devices and their associated
> features
> (http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=v4_asmbl), I'm a
> little miffed at their chip resource allocation.
> 
> First of all, suppose I'm planning on filling an FPGA full of logic. I'm
> probably going to run the majority of that logic in the same clock domain so
> I don't need a whole lot of DCMs. However, I do need some way to get my data
> to/from the chip. What's up with zero transceivers on the "logic platform"?
> The same can be asked of the "signal processing platform". I was so looking
> forward to getting away from the old parallel I/O issues, and if I'm going
> to have to deal with that, maybe we better leave those DCMs on there. It
> wouldn't take very many transceivers to alleviate the issue.
> 
> Second, what about those of us who build and prototype digital bus
> controllers, routers, and similar applications. In that situation I'm
> looking for an FPGA with lots of memory, lots of transceivers, lots of DCMs,
> a fair amount of logic, and not much else. DSP and Processors don't really
> help me in that type of application, yet to get what I need I will end up
> spending the extra money for the FX chip.
> 
> 
0
Austin
6/10/2004 4:52:59 PM
"Brannon King" wrote:

>So after looking at the Virtex4 line of devices and their associated
>features
>(http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=v4_asmbl), I'm a
>little miffed at their chip resource allocation.

Oh, everyone is miffed at chip resource allocation.  Almost always.
But for different reasons.  Just for a second, think about this from
Xilinx's point of view:

They can't make lots of different chips.  Each different type adds to
the development costs, support costs, inventory costs and sales costs.

Some of their customers need lots of (Pick one: RAM, IOs, DCMs,
processors, transceivers, multipliers, LUTS and FFs).  Many other
customers need less or could even care less.  For example, I've never
worked on a chip that had a reasonable use for a multiplier since the
XC4000 days, when there wasn't any multipliers!

So the chips Xilinx make must be compromises.  What I see in the
Virtex4 line is the following:

1) The logic platform is reasonable for things that are basically data
movers/processors with RAM buffers.  Yes, transceivers might be useful
for some, but parallel IO isn't dead yet, and will not be dead as long
as DDR SDRAM is the commodity memory technology.  Probably not enough
internal memory, but I'm sure there are other opinions!

2) The DSP platform is probably reasonable for DSP.  Perhaps someone
more versed in the DSP would could comment?

3) The full-featured platform should cover most other uses, but expect
to pay for features you don't need.

Now, did Xilinx miss any large volume uses of FPGAs?  I don't think
so.  Sure, a prototype router might require no hard processor, no
multipliers and other DSP support, and the designer will need to buy
the FX chip with these features, but how many of these are going to be
built?

YMMV, SRA, SDD, OMNHO, ...


--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email

0
Phil
6/10/2004 5:25:19 PM
Symon,

Ha ha ha.

That was really funny (really, it was).  Almost quoted me chapter and verse.

And I would hope it is OK with everyone that Xilinx continues to make 
money so that we can enable all of you to do likewise.

Glad you are not puzzled by any of this.

Austin

Symon wrote:
> I bet the answer you get from Xilinx will be along the lines of "we analysed
> X number of designs from our customer base and found these three to be the
> best fit (to maximise our profits)". They won't actually say the bit in
> parentheses, but that's what they're in business for. Fair enough.
> I guess the 'new' architecture makes it somewhat easier to add further
> variants. After all, they've only used three letters (LSF) so far, that
> leaves space for 23 more mixes! ;-)
> I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> reconfiguration a reality.
> cheers, Syms.
> 
> 
0
Austin
6/10/2004 6:08:37 PM
Hey,

Why so much negativity on this board regarding V4 already? It's the
most kick-ass and awesome FPGA ever made. How bout some kudos and a
big thanks to Xilinx for stepping up to the plate and hitting one out
of the park?

If you think the parts are not planned right or no thinking was put
into it you are on a different planet. The people with the most desire
for the right features determined the results. I really don't think
Xilinx told their customers what they need. So I would humbly submit
to you that if you don't understand the thinking, then you don't
understand the market.

Anyway, let's get a bit excited on this board about the most
significant advancement in FPGA technology in several years. It will
completely blow Stratix II and anything else out of the water in every
regard. Great thinking and innovation seem to be poured into V4.

500 MHz all over the place.
3 versions, Everything, logic, DSP
PPC 405
600 to 11 Gbps I/O
1 Gbps I/O on every pin

Sounds pretty spectacular to me. So get a bit excited and have some
positive thinking out there. V4 SX, LX, and FX are going to be the
standard in 90 nm FPGA technology.

Yeah!


"Brannon King" <bking@starbridgesystems.com> wrote in message news:<ca9v66$m5@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> So after looking at the Virtex4 line of devices and their associated
> features
> (http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=v4_asmbl), I'm a
> little miffed at their chip resource allocation.
> 
> First of all, suppose I'm planning on filling an FPGA full of logic. I'm
> probably going to run the majority of that logic in the same clock domain so
> I don't need a whole lot of DCMs. However, I do need some way to get my data
> to/from the chip. What's up with zero transceivers on the "logic platform"?
> The same can be asked of the "signal processing platform". I was so looking
> forward to getting away from the old parallel I/O issues, and if I'm going
> to have to deal with that, maybe we better leave those DCMs on there. It
> wouldn't take very many transceivers to alleviate the issue.
> 
> Second, what about those of us who build and prototype digital bus
> controllers, routers, and similar applications. In that situation I'm
> looking for an FPGA with lots of memory, lots of transceivers, lots of DCMs,
> a fair amount of logic, and not much else. DSP and Processors don't really
> help me in that type of application, yet to get what I need I will end up
> spending the extra money for the FX chip.
0
seannstifler69
6/11/2004 6:14:07 AM
Can you point me to some technical data on the enhanced partial
reconfig capabilities?  I'm very interested in this area and I can't
seem to find anything on Xilinx's site that wasn't written by somebody
from the marketing department.

  - a

"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> writes:
> I bet the answer you get from Xilinx will be along the lines of "we analysed
> X number of designs from our customer base and found these three to be the
> best fit (to maximise our profits)". They won't actually say the bit in
> parentheses, but that's what they're in business for. Fair enough.
> I guess the 'new' architecture makes it somewhat easier to add further
> variants. After all, they've only used three letters (LSF) so far, that
> leaves space for 23 more mixes! ;-)
> I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> reconfiguration a reality.
> cheers, Syms.
>
>

-- 
"The first time I read this book I felt what I could only explain as a
 great disturbance in the Force: it was as if a billion washing
 machinces all became unbalanced at once and were suddenly silenced."

                             -- anonymous book reviewer on Amazon.com
0
Adam
6/11/2004 8:28:20 AM
"Stifler" <seannstifler69@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf780a06.0406102214.3bc26509@posting.google.com...
> Hey,
>
> Why so much negativity on this board regarding V4 already? It's the
> most kick-ass and awesome FPGA ever made. How bout some kudos and a
> big thanks to Xilinx for stepping up to the plate and hitting one out
> of the park?

Has it been made yet?  I was real happy to see the announcement but a bit
disappointed that it didn't come with some data sheets for a good
architectural description with all the minutia about resources available in
the planned parts.  I'm okay with not having working silicon for a short
while but I think some of the backlash on this board was because of the
insensitive tease.  Bait the engineers with something that looks very good
but don't give them any real meat.  I'm looking forward to further news.

> If you think the parts are not planned right or no thinking was put
> into it you are on a different planet. The people with the most desire
> for the right features determined the results. I really don't think
> Xilinx told their customers what they need. So I would humbly submit
> to you that if you don't understand the thinking, then you don't
> understand the market.
>
> Anyway, let's get a bit excited on this board about the most
> significant advancement in FPGA technology in several years. It will
> completely blow Stratix II and anything else out of the water in every
> regard. Great thinking and innovation seem to be poured into V4.

You may be overstating a bit to suggest this is "the most significant
advancement" since the features are almost everything we've already seen.
The PPC, the MGT, the CLB structure (I believe) are all pretty much the
same.  The evolutionary features that are attractive include the enhanced
DSP elements including hardware divide and the no-overhead FIFO mode for the
BlockRAMs.  Neat stuff, but it doesn't come across as a revolutionary
product.  Evolutionary is fine.

Didn't Stratix-II come out with a "revolutionary" change to the LUT
structures to allow interesting input configurations such as independent
3-bit and 5-bit input functions without chewing up other resources?  A
little flexibility is a good thing.  Don't get me wrong - I like the LUTs we
get from Xilinx thanks to the memory and SRL capabilities;  I've used them
virtually unchanged for years and years.

> 500 MHz all over the place.
> 3 versions, Everything, logic, DSP
> PPC 405
> 600 to 11 Gbps I/O
> 1 Gbps I/O on every pin

A nice feature set, indeed.

> Sounds pretty spectacular to me. So get a bit excited and have some
> positive thinking out there. V4 SX, LX, and FX are going to be the
> standard in 90 nm FPGA technology.
>
> Yeah!

I'm hoping Xilinx continues to deliver the price/performance advantages
we've come to enjoy.
Looking forward to it!


0
John_H
6/11/2004 3:44:12 PM
Symon wrote:
> 
> I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> reconfiguration a reality.

I missed something.  I don't see anything that talks about partial
reconfiguration and what I do see indicates these parts are still
designed around columns.  

I am still waiting for modular configuration support for Spartan 3.  I
was told over six months ago that they had just a couple of issues that
needed to be addressed before they could provide this and that Xilinx
was commited to providing this feature.  

-- 

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX
0
rickman
6/11/2004 4:12:41 PM
Adam,
I don't know any technical details, but it struck me that the block
structure is ideally suited to partial reconfiguration on a block by block
basis. It's like lots of mini FPGAs on one die, much more than it was
before. I don't believe that Xilinx will pass up this opportunity to tune
the software to allow block by block P&R etc. I envisage an application, a
bit like Ultracontroller, that demonstrates 'partial configuration for
dummies' of a ASBL block with a standardised interface to adjacent blocks.
I'd recommend pestering your FAE, if enough people are interested or, more
importantly, enough people will use this feature, I'm sure the marketing
machine will respond! From my point of view, with an FPGA with as many gates
as these parts will have, I think partial reconfiguration will become the
norm as more and more little ASICs are converted to IP and hoovered up into
the FPGA.
cheers, Syms.

"Adam Megacz" <adam@megacz.com> wrote in message
news:m13c521ot7.fsf@nowhere.com...
>
> Can you point me to some technical data on the enhanced partial
> reconfig capabilities?  I'm very interested in this area and I can't
> seem to find anything on Xilinx's site that wasn't written by somebody
> from the marketing department.
>
>   - a


0
Symon
6/11/2004 4:17:37 PM
Rick,
I'm so excited that maybe my grammar got away from me. Try replacing
'excited' with 'optimistic' to get what I meant. The 'new' thing that Xilinx
is pushing is this ASBL block structure. Surely(!?) they've designed these
blocks to be easily individually programmable? Especially as valued
customers like us have been pushing for it for years?
Cheers, Syms.
"rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40C9D9F9.E6D04ADB@yahoo.com...
> Symon wrote:
> >
> > I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> > reconfiguration a reality.
>
> I missed something.  I don't see anything that talks about partial
> reconfiguration and what I do see indicates these parts are still
> designed around columns.
>


0
Symon
6/11/2004 4:45:43 PM
I would be willing to bet NOT.  I don't see any sign that the ASBL
blocks relate to configuration blocks.  Yeah, it would be a great think
if they could do that, but I'm not holding my breath.  


Symon wrote:
> 
> Rick,
> I'm so excited that maybe my grammar got away from me. Try replacing
> 'excited' with 'optimistic' to get what I meant. The 'new' thing that Xilinx
> is pushing is this ASBL block structure. Surely(!?) they've designed these
> blocks to be easily individually programmable? Especially as valued
> customers like us have been pushing for it for years?
> Cheers, Syms.
> "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40C9D9F9.E6D04ADB@yahoo.com...
> > Symon wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> > > reconfiguration a reality.
> >
> > I missed something.  I don't see anything that talks about partial
> > reconfiguration and what I do see indicates these parts are still
> > designed around columns.
> >

-- 

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX
0
rickman
6/11/2004 5:45:00 PM
The real question is not if the support partial reconfiguration ... but you
and how many others want it... there was a partially configurable Xilinx
....once .. many years ago... but it came and went.. this is capitalism not
fantasy money talks the rest walk.
So unless someone is willing to spend $$$ partial reconfiguration is an
electric dream. and if you really need it.. put down 2 devices :-)

Simon


"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2iu5tqFqvetqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Rick,
> I'm so excited that maybe my grammar got away from me. Try replacing
> 'excited' with 'optimistic' to get what I meant. The 'new' thing that
Xilinx
> is pushing is this ASBL block structure. Surely(!?) they've designed these
> blocks to be easily individually programmable? Especially as valued
> customers like us have been pushing for it for years?
> Cheers, Syms.
> "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40C9D9F9.E6D04ADB@yahoo.com...
> > Symon wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm excited that the block structure will finally make partial
> > > reconfiguration a reality.
> >
> > I missed something.  I don't see anything that talks about partial
> > reconfiguration and what I do see indicates these parts are still
> > designed around columns.
> >
>
>


0
Simon
6/12/2004 5:31:07 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

AOL 9.0 don't do it just don't . Don't even think of it.
I had 8.0, and it ran fine. I downloaded 9.0 and that was the end of my computer never having a problem. 3 years and no problems. 1 week with AOL 9.0 and I've had 27 error messages , sign offs and other problems. AOL was no help. They can't even admit it has a problem. So I had to REFORMAT MY HARD DRIVE AND INSTALL ALL MY PROGRAMS AND ALL MY SAVED FILES. Needless to say I no longer have AOL at all. Reformat and get rid of it. ...

I sell various items for Amiga on EBAY, if you don't agree don't read and don't break my balls, understand mr. user?
See on this link: http://search.ebay.it/_W0QQsassZmousemikiQQhtZ-1 P.s. not all items are for Amiga, simple don't see others! ...

Don't understand: when('foo' and/or 'bar')
Would someone be so kind to explain the following (quotes are for win32 perl): perl -E" $u='foo'; given($u){ when('foo' and 'bar'){say 'f'} default{say 'd'} } " d perl -E" $u='bar'; given($u){ when('foo' and 'bar'){say 'f'} default{say 'd'} } " f perl -E" $u='baz'; given($u){ when('foo' and 'bar'){say 'f'} default{say 'd'} } " d perl -E" $u='foo'; given($u){ when('foo' or 'bar'){say 'f'} default{...

I don't work for IBM and I don't make promises I can't deliver on
I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they have on the Internet now. I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract. Robert. On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote: > I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they > have on the Internet now. > > I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract. > > Robert. I don't work for IBM (anymore) either. If you are talking about the death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver. They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial guess. And I guess Ben chose not to print some more to pay for it. On Aug 24, 11:17=A0pm, Del Cecchi <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/12/2011 11:24 PM, Robert Myers wrote: > > > I wish I could afford an advertising campaign to compete with what they > > have on the Internet now. > > > I promise to go totally ballistic at the next LLLNL contract. > > > Robert. > > I don't work for IBM (anymore) either. =A0If you are talking about the > death of Blue Waters, I don't believe they said they couldn't deliver. > They said they chose not to because they would lose a bunch of money on > the project since it turned out to cost a lot more than the initial guess= .. > > And I guess Ben chose not to print some mor...

What we don't know we can't think about 1
What we don't know we can't think about 1 We can make a lot of noise. And the history is full of the same noise. We are busy, and sometimes we have bright results and we are glad with it. Of course, what else. But looking at history nearly nothing stayed. Don't we remember that our earth was flat. They were the same people as we and now we have of course such ideas as well. The most cautious poster we have here is Glen. He calls all our theories, our models, our ideas, presumptions. And please proof of it's not true. Do you know we mathematicians proof all the time Glen is...

I don't understand why this Swift 2 String() won't init
I have this code in an os x playground (XCode Version 7.2 (7C68)): let urlString = "https://news.google.com" let url = NSURL(string: urlString)! let listData = NSData(contentsOfURL: url)! var dataString = String(data: listData, encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding) print(dataString) and what seems to me to be equilivent code in an OS X app I'm building: static func httpRequest(urlString: String) -> String { if let url = NSURL(string: urlString) { if let urlData = NSData(contentsOfURL: url) { return String(data: urlData, encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding) ?? &quo...

DTD won't parse, don't understand the error messages
I have (obviously) an error in my DTD. Different parsers give me different error messages, but none of them help me understand the problem or how to fix it. sgmls says 'onsgmls:<URL>http://bowyer.journeyman.cc/adl/stable/adl/ schemas/adl-1.4.dtd:483:27:E: "canonical" is not a reserved name' Xerces says 'http://bowyer.journeyman.cc/adl/stable/adl/schemas/ adl-1.4.dtd:483:28:Parse Error: the attribute type is required in the declaration of the attribute "sequence" for the element "order". What's actually there at 483 is: <!ELEMENT order (documentation?)> <!ATTLIST order property CDATA #REQUIRED sequence %Sequences; #IMPLIED> where Sequences is defined at line 174 as <!-- sequences for orderings of lists - see entity 'order' canonical: Whatever the normal canonical ordering for this datatype is - typically alpha-numeric, except for dates, etc. reverse-canonical: The reverse of the above possibly there should be some further values but I have no idea what these are --> <!ENTITY % Sequences "canonical|reverse-canonical"> Ideally I'd like not only to know how to fix it, but to understand why it's wrong in order that I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks! -- ;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat 20 Jun 2010 14:53:22 GMT, /Simon Brooke/: > Xerces says 'http://bowyer.journe...

Windows as a 'database' server? I /don't/ think so...
This problem occured today. Luckly it was on a test database! Windows is *not* production ready... http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit6.asp Torn_Page_Detection Because data pages in SQL Server (8K) and NT Server or Windows Server (512 bytes) are different sizes, it is possible during power failures, or if you are have disk driver or physical disk problems, for your database to become corrupted. Here's why. Every time the operating system writes an 8K SQL Server data page to disk, it must break up the data into multiple 512 byte pages. After the f...

I don't understand the usage of 'lsort -command'?
The following are extracted from the manpage of lsort: -command command Use command as a comparison command. To compare two elements, evaluate a Tcl script consisting of command with the two elements appended as additional arguments. The script should return an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if the first ele- ment is to be considered less than, equal to, or greater than the second, respectively. And as following is an example in the book <Practical Programming in Tcl and Tk 4th Edition>: proc NameCompare {a b} { set alast [lindex $a end] set blast [lindex $b end] set res [string compare $alast $blast] if {$res != 0} { return $res } else { return [string compare $a $b] } } set list {{Brent B. Welch} {John Ousterhout} {Miles Davis}} => {Brent B. Welch} {John Ousterhout} {Miles Davis} lsort -command NameCompare $list => {Miles Davis} {John Ousterhout} {Brent B. Welch} I dont't understand how does the "lsort -command NameCompare $list" work? e.g.: How does the elements of $list pass to NameCompare? How does lsort use the return value of the proc NameCompare? On 26 Jun., 15:24, Godfrey Xu <flyhig...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dont't understand how does the "lsort -command NameCompare $list" > work? > e.g.: > How does th...

Don't ask, don't tell...
While my son visited me for the day, after we went to the Hawks-Giants game and then to see Harry Potter he was still awake (12 years old) and so I put him in front of my Suse 10.0 machine and let him play Unreal Tournament 2004 in Linux. I let him set up the machine in Control Center first (he's a right hander and I'm a leftie), using KDE Control center, and then had him launch and run UT2004. I did't say anything about this being a Linux machine and I have no idea if he knows what Linux is even. I was about to "give the speech about Linux" and I decided, no, I would just let him use the machine and see what he said. He said nothing. He just used the machine as a PC, made the changes, launched an app and played UT04. To me that speaks volumes. That a new user to Linux, who's never seen it in his life, did not perk up and say "oh, what's this! is it some new kind of computer!". No, it was just another GUI, that allowed him to do the task that he wanted to. And that means that there is nothing stopping Linux. John Bailo wrote: > While my son visited me for the day, after we went to the Hawks-Giants game > and then to see Harry Potter he was still awake (12 years old) and so I put > him in front of my Suse 10.0 machine and let him play Unreal Tournament > 2004 in Linux. I let him set up the machine in Control Center first (he's > a right hander and I'm a leftie), using KDE Control center, an...

don't tell don't ask
I'm still struggling with OO concepts. I've read several books and studied various OO languages, but I don't really feel I have a good grasp of the concepts. I like the sound of the "tell, don't ask" model, where networks of objects are asked to perform the work they are responsible for, rather than asking objects to give you information (like a string) that you do something with. But, I get confused when I try to apply the idea to a program design. The only way I can think of avoiding asking objecs for information is if the program consists of nothing but one object of class "Program" with one method called "execute" that does everything. I've seen an example of bad design: AssociativeArray c = object.getEmployees() for each employee in employees: c.put(employee.name(), employee) the "tell don't ask" version of which could be: object.addEmployees(employees); So, "object"'s class supports the "tell model", by allowing you to tell it to add employees rather than asking it for a map to modify. But, doesn't that mean that "employees"'s class has to support the "ask model", so that it "object" can get each of the "employee" objects and their names? Is there a way to actually use "tell" insead of "ask", through out. Or, how do you categorize when you should use "tell" and when you should use "ask"?...

Do You Know Your 'Terror Score'? Think You Don't Have One?
Dispute over 'terror scores' for airline travelers Supporters of the federal system say it's necessary in the terror war. Privacy advocates aren't persuaded. By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor NEW YORK -- Do you know your terror score? Think you don't have one? You may, if you've traveled internationally during the past four years. And that is generating a growing controversy both in the United States and abroad. The Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been quietly assigning travelers, both American and foreign, on international flights a score that's designed to identify high-risk travelers. It's derived from a set of criteria, such as where you're from and whether you have a habit of buying one-way tickets and paying with cash. CBP officials call the program, which was implemented with little public notice and no congressional approval, a crucial tool to protect the nation. They describe it as a kind of extra electronic border that has the potential to catch terrorists and criminals before they get to an actual border crossing. "Without a system like this, we would in many ways be blind to potential threats before they arrive," says Jarrod Agen, a DHS spokesman. But some congressional leaders, privacy advocates, and travel executives believe it's an unparalleled use of data-mining to invade individuals' privacy....

I think there is a bug in "SortChildren" or, I don't understand the feature
If you don't "DECLARE_DYNAMIC_CLASS", the "wxTreeCtrl::OnCompareItems" is not called. That's because of the implementation in " $Id: treectrl.cpp,v 1.205 2005/05/22 14:47:41 JS Exp $" In Line 2194 you see: // rely on the fact that TreeView_SortChildren does the same thing as our // default behaviour, i.e. sorts items alphabetically and so call it // directly if we're not in derived class (much more efficient!) if ( GetClassInfo() == CLASSINFO(wxTreeCtrl) ) { TreeView_SortChildren(GetHwnd(), HITEM(item), 0...

Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
YOUR MONEY Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. By DAMON DARLIN The fears of the direct marketing industry came true. Once a do-not-call list was created, people did register, in droves. The list was created in 2003, not as a way to protect privacy, but to remove a powerful irritant from the lives of Americans. The Federal Trade Commission, which administers the list, says that more than 137 million phone numbers have been placed on the list by people tired of interruptions during dinner or their favorite TV show. The popularity of the do-not-call list unleashed a demand for other opt-out lists. A consumer can now opt out of the standard practice of their banks or loan companies selling their information to others. Other opt-outs stop credit card companies from soliciting consumers or end the flow of junk mail and catalogs. While most of the opt-outs are intended to make life less annoying, they can also have the side effect of protecting personal information that can be misused by identity thieves or unscrupulous merchants. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20money.html?ex=1326949200&en=3efc9e8515a9ea4a&ei=5090 ...

Linux crapware victim: Mepis8 'collapsed'... webcams don't work on Ubuntu 12.04..."Don't tell me to build a kernel..."
"I need my webcam to work with flash on web pages so that I can speak to family members overseas (Kopete and suchlike). I used mepis8 for years and everything was perfect, my webcams (three different makes), printers and anything else I cared to plug in worked from the off. lovely!! Then mepis8 collapsed suddenly and nothing worked. I tried the newer mepis variants and every other linux distro that I came across to solve the problem, but nothing works. I'm now using ubuntu 12.04, because it's not windows I suppose, but it's far from what I need. Can anybody on here please tell me how to make any one of my webcams work on Ubuntu 12.04 with flash? Don't tell me it's the manufacturer's fault, because they worked on Mepis8. Don't tell me to build a kernel and add some Su (or do or sudo) and add a line et al because it's all gibberish to me. Keep it simple please. Complicated is fine as long as it's step by step or copy and paste. Unfortunately, after about 12 years on linux, I will be driven back to windows if I don't get some help. The Mepis forums used to be excellent for advice because there weren't any bigheads showing off their superior knowledge of linux on it. The Ubuntu forums seem to be the opposite, more than 1000 posts (in two threads) on why they prefer ubuntu to xp, but none of them can help me get my webcam working!!!! So this is the challenge, before ...

Don't like MSIE6? Don't like MS?
If you so dislike MS, do the minimal thing: advocate another browser on web pages you control. Example: http://masonc.home.netcom.com This is not a troll. Just go do what you're told and shut up. Mason C I will not respond Mason A. Clark wrote: > If you so dislike MS, do the minimal thing: advocate another > browser on web pages you control. > > Example: http://masonc.home.netcom.com > > This is not a troll. Just go do what you're told and shut up. > > Mason C I will not respond I don't advocate ...

Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know
Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? On 3/23/2015 9:23 AM, John Gohde wrote: > Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? No, I don't know that. Nobody but you knows that, GodHesDumb. ..Apples don't fall FAR from the tree, don't you know? > > No, I don't know that. Nobody but you knows that LOL - In DooF..uS' case, they surely float up. On 23/03/2015 13:23, John Gohde wrote: > Apples don't fall from the tree, don't you know? > You might want to carefully read what you wrote unles...

Re: Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
Monty Solomon wrote: > YOUR MONEY > Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. > By DAMON DARLIN > The fears of the direct marketing industry came true. Once a > do-not-call list was created, people did register, in droves. Unfortunately, there are too many exceptions. Non-profit organizations and politicians can still make unwanted soliciting calls and they do so in droves. Past contacts may call as well, and "past contact" is a very loose definition. Some callers simply disregard the law, knowing they'll get away with it. ...

Re: Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be. #2
In message <telecom26.22.10@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Some callers simply disregard the law, knowing they'll get away with it. Not so much that they get away with it, paying the fines is just a cost of business. 'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never have snipped at all. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fines should increase each time they are imposed until the company could no longer afford the cost. PAT] ...

OT: Too funny not to share (DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR)
Dear Abby, My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning; and, when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows=20 that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating! Also, since he lost his job six years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I have to=20 work to pay the bills. And since our daughter went away to college, he doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do? Signed,...

I don't get why '>' doesn't get printed in the following example
When I do a here-document, the '>' character shows up to indicate the start of a newline. [cdalten@localhost ~]$ cat << EOF > My current directory is dir $PWD > EOF My current directory is dir /home/cdalten [cdalten@localhost ~]$ What prevents the '>' characters from showing up in the final output? On Jul 3, 10:35 am, Chad <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote: > When I do a here-document, the '>' character shows up to indicate the > start of a newline. > > [cdalten@localhost ~]$ cat << EOF> My current directory is dir $PWD > &...

I don't read docs and don't know how to use Google. What does the print function do?
Please help me this assignment is due in an hour. Don't give me hints, just give me the answer because I only want a grade. I'm not actually interested in learning how to program, but I know software engineers make lots of money so I want to be one. sohcahtoa82@gmail.com wrote: > Please help me this assignment is due in an hour. Don't give me hints, > just give me the answer because I only want a grade. I'm not actually > interested in learning how to program, but I know software engineers make > lots of money so I want to be one. I'm sorry I have...

Oh damn. A free Trojan and I don't get to enjoy it because I don't run Windows.
I just received this message in my email not too long ago. Quoted message below " v> Hello friend ! You have just received a postcard from someone who cares about you! This is a part of the message: "Hy there! It has been a long time since I haven't heared about you! I've just found out about this service from Claire, a friend of mine who also told me that..." If you'd like to see the rest of the message ->click here<- to receive your animated postcard! =================== Thank you for using www.yourpostcard.com 's services !!! Please take this op...

She wants a PC, I don't think it's a good idea...
I've mentioned before a certain friend of mine, the one who's son liked to mess around with the computer and actually disabled it at one point. Well, she's seen my heavily case modded PC (lots of UV lights, UV reactive cables & fans and such) and now she wants one too. Keep in mind, this is the person who's loaner PC was completely infested with malware within a couple of weeks (I didn't know she had it until she called me to fix it), and the one who refused to read even the first chapter of her Mac for Dummies book. If she just wanted it for show, and wasn't actually going to use it, that would be okay, but a waste of money. If she was willing to do what's necessary to protect it, that would be different too. But I think she's going to use it, and hook it up to her broadband, and not protect it, and then come to me once it's been infested. How do I talk her out of it? I wouldn't mind building it for her, but I don't want to hear about it when it gets infested. And since she's a friend, I'd hate to see her waste money that could buy her, oh, something useful to her like a newer iMac. Maybe buy a used but pretty current tower Mac and get that into a modded case? Now that would be a fun and worthwhile challenge. Honestly, I just don't think that a PC is a wise choice for her, but she's just not listening to that. Her son badly wants to play UT2004 with me online, but that can easily be done on any re...

Web resources about - Virtex4: I don't understand their thinking.... - comp.arch.fpga

Resonate Social For Facebook Helps Advertisers Understand Users’ Motivations
Why do Facebook users make the decisions they make? Resonate wants to help advertisers find out, so the digital marketing outfit launched Resonate ...

Facebook PMD Gigya releases Consumer Insights to better understand user identities
... allows marketers to easily query Gigya’s Identity Storage database and tie identity information with key performance indicators to understand ...

Genius by Rap Genius — Search and understand the meaning of song lyrics, poetry, literature, and news ...
Get Genius by Rap Genius — Search and understand the meaning of song lyrics, poetry, literature, and news on the App Store. See screenshots and ...

All sizes - Understand Abundance & Breath - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Flickr is almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world. Show off your favorite photos and videos to ...

Kate Micucci & Tony Thaxton - "Puppets Understand" - YouTube
Subscribe for more Nerdist Presents: http://nerdi.st/subscribe Written and Performed by KATE MICUCCI & TONY THAXTON Watch Duo: http://youtu.be/Tj5RLliHNMQ ...

Scientists continue search to understand Mers
The Mers coronavirus continues to confound scientists. To better understand the disease and determine where it comes from, a new project set ...

Explainer Video of the Day: Author John Green Helps You Understand Boko Haram
... in the news, but the situation in Nigeria with the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram often gets overlooked and can be difficult to understand. ...

David Lawton says MH370 disappearance 'hard to understand'
The family of missing Queensland couple Bob and Cathy Lawton are continuing to hold out hope, following a week of confusion and twists in the ...

12 Words And Phrases Only Accountants Will Understand
Every industry has its own set of jargon.

Tony Abbott doesn't understand the China challenge
The Australian government's new attitude towards China's foreign policy underestimates that country's determination to change the geopolitical ...

Resources last updated: 3/17/2016 9:24:24 AM