Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 July 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 22

Quad-Socket 128GB RAM Server

   I am looking for a server with the following characteristics. If anyone knows of a rackmount server which meets these criterion, please let me know.

1. Accommodates four Intel eight-core or AMD twelve-core processors.
2. Accomodates 128GB of DDR3 ECC RAM (with a speed of 1333MHz or 1066MHz) in either eight, sixteen or thirty-two DIMM slots.
3. Operates or is certified to operate on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 HPC Edition.
4. Consumes a maximum of 1,200 watts or preferably less.
5. Consumes only one or at most two units of rackspace.

   Thank you to everyone in advance. Rocketshiporion (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any such system exists yet. High-performace IBM System X may be able to deliver 96 GB; they will soon be able to deliver 192 GB as soon as 16-GB RDIMM memory is available. SunBlade X6000 series, the top-shelf from Sun (rather, Oracle, now), still fails to meet your spec. SGI Altix'es are probably way out of your (or anybody's) price-range; but they offer 96 GB per 2U, and can chassis-stack up to 3 2U's in one 6U chassis. Your additional constraints are going to be pretty impossible - a 2U server with 4 Nehalems may be a thermal impossibility, so few mainstream vendors will even attempt to build one. You might try some of the smaller system-integrators who could customize a system board and chassis for you. (Also, just in case you're unaware, such a system, if it becomes available in 3Q or 4Q 2010, will not be cheap. Have you considered node-level parallelism as a cost-effective alternative?) For perspective on how "not cheap" we are talking, the server links I have sent you do not have prices on the websites. Instead, they have a telephone number you can call, and IBM or SGI will send a sales-man to your corporate office to discuss procurement with you, should you wish to actually buy. Nimur (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Supermicro 1U SuperServer 8016B-TF meets your requirements. But be warned that it probably is way out of anybody's price range. The HP BladeSystem BL680c G5 Server also meets most of your specifications, except that it comes in a blade form factor, so you have to buy the enclosure and interconnects to support it. This option is good only if you plan to deploy a HPC cluster of such servers, as the cost (although I don't know how much it costs) would be prohibitive for a single server - configurable models for the server alone have a base price of US$7,102.00! Elspetheastman (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SuperMicro definitely has some servers like that, including an old DDR2 model that you can get pretty cheap. See also penguincomputing.com's Altus 1804 for a 4-socket 1U AMD box that can accomodate 32 DIMMs. With 6-core CPUs and 8GB DIMMs ($$$$) that would be 256GB and 24 cores. See also pogolinux.com's AMD servers. 67.122.211.208 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I found what you're looking for - what you want is an Amax H1202 Server (which supports four AMD Opteron 6000 Series 8-core or 12-core processors) or an Amax X1401 Server (which accomodates four Intel 7500 Series 4-core, 6-core or 8-core processors). Both of these are 1U servers, they both have 32 DIMM slots (8 DIMM slots per processor) and one x16 PCI-E 2.0 card slot, and they both use a non-redundant 1400-watt Power Supply Unit. But what Nimur said still holds true in terms of the price of these two servers; they would both be out of anybody's price range. Here's a thought - why not use two dual-socket servers with 64GB each of RAM; especially since Linux doesn't cost anything whether you install it on one server or ten. Might I ask what version of Linux you're planning to use, and by the way what is/are your intended application(s)? Elspetheastman (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I intend to use Microsoft Windows Server 2008 HPC Edition, not any type of Linux. Thank you for the links to the Supermicro 1U SuperServer 8016B-TF and to the Amax homepage. The links to the H1202 and the X1401 both lead to an enquiry-form, not to product information. As for the Altus 1804, it doesn't say anything about being compatible with Microsoft Windows Server 2008 HPC Edition. Rocketshiporion (talk)

The board will run Windows (as will any Xeon or x86_64 board); but I'm not sure if any version of Windows Server, including the HPC edition, can support that much RAM. Nimur (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked, and the Microsoft Windows Server 2008 HPC Edition supports a maximum of four processors and 128GB of RAM. Rocketshiporion (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to be patronising, but if you have a rack constraint requiring your spec being 2U maximum, surely you should replace an old device in the rack (or buy an additional rack) and buy something like an HP DL585 G7 (4U) ? Seems to tick all your technical boxes otherwise, is from a 'proper' manufacturer (I'll leave that up to people's opinion of HP as an enterprise vendor to determine how 'proper' they are ;) ) and has the fully redundant components you would surely want in this type of server? (I read the Amax comment above with interest until the 'non-redundant 1400 watt power supply' comment!) It will not be cheap, of course, but cost was not in your listed criterion ;-)

Ooh, check out the Dell PowerEdge R810 Server It's got 32 DIMM slots supporting up to 512GB of DDR3 1066MHz ECC RAM (with 16GB DIMMs - gee, that's a lot of RAM!), supports four eight-core Intel processors, has two redundant 1100W power supply units and five x8 PCI-E 2.0 slots, and it also accomodates up to six 2.5-inch SAS/SATA HDDs or SSDs. And it takes up only 3.4 inches of rackspace...Elspetheastman (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Windows Picture & Fax Viewer vs. Win7 Photo Viewer

Is it just me or does the Windows 7 "Windows Photo Viewer" seem a lot clunkier than the old XP Pic & Fax viewer? Zooming in on pics in WPV is very blocky whereas P&FV zoomed smoothly, and so on. Any way to get it back in 7, or otherwise tweaks to WPV in 7? Thanks!

As far as I know, P&FV is a WinXP component. It is not available in Win7. Attempting to copy the files will not work, as it uses a DLL file "shimgvw.dll", which will not work in Win7. See here for some alternatives..  A p3rson ‽ 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Google translate errors

Given the number of times this comes up [1] I have tried to create a simple section expanding on the types of errors google translate makes.. Google_Translate#Translation_mistakes_and_oddities

However despite being a common topic on the internet I'm having trouble finding non-blog references to this, or references that cover this topic in simple fashion. Does anyone know of articles that are suitable for referencing/explaining this behaviour. (or please expand/fix article yourself) Thanks. 77.86.76.47 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps GT had not yet been subject to thorough scientific examination. Please consider that it is not a true translating machine, rather a statistical translator, as our article states in its lead section. A scientific analysis of this instrument would be like comparing target efficiency of a particular gun to the targeting efficiency of rain. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would statistical machine translation not be a suitable area for scientific study? I don't follow your logic. Warofdreams talk 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Try searching on Google Scholar for "Google Translate" and "machine translation" - there are a large number of relevant studies. Warofdreams talk 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Realted Image Search

Hey, I have an url of an image and I want to search for all the related images. How can I do that ? 218.248.80.57 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One idea is the use Tineye at http://tineye.com to show images that contain or are part of that image. ALternately try the url in Google and see what you come up with. On Wikipedia a what links here click may show where it is used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but Tineye couldn't find it. Feeding the url to google search doesn't match anything. Anyways, thanks you gave me a pretty useful site !218.248.80.57 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you post it here or some other popular place someone might have more information. --Sean 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

LinkedIn raiding my emails?

I recently joined the social networking site LinkedIn and have since received a couple of emails asking me if I would like to link to a couple of people. They have helpfully suggested some people that I might like to link. Their suggestions are of people that I know. So this must mean that LinkedIn has read through my email list and found people on LinkedIn, so they can suggest them. Is this legal? Ooops sorry didn't mean to ask for legal advice. I mean, are they allowed to do this? What are the rules surrounding this type of thing?91.109.244.67 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, you don't know if they've raided your e-mail lists or the other peoples' lists. You also may have given them access without realizing it—a lot of sites these days do the "give us your e-mail info and we'll get your address book!" shuck (which I personally detest). But my suspicion is that it's the kind of thing that after joining for awhile they'll ask you if you want to integrate your e-mail list in, and then store that info. They probably did that with the people who they've suggested and had your e-mail on file just waiting for you to sign up.

There's also the possibility it isn't e-mail based at all; that it's just a very clever algorithm to detect who you might know, based on where you work and things like that. I don't know. There are limits to how clever such a thing can be, but in general predicting social networks is not that hard if certain things (like school, employment, city, etc.) are known.

But in general, no, they aren't allowed to hack into your e-mail account without your permissions, of course. (Though it should be noted that the specifics of what is illegal and whether this alleged activity would be considered illegal depends a LOT on jurisdiction.) BUT they almost certainly didn't do THAT, and got the contacts voluntarily either from you (without you really paying attention to it) or from the other people. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it's the opposite actually. That other folks who have signed up and have attempted to "link" with you providing your email address when looking for you. Now that you have signed up using an email address that's been searched for, it makes the connections so they as well as you don't have to. Tuxhedoh (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that I missed a button and allowed them access. The people in question are people that I hardly know but happen to have in my address book. They wouln't try and add me (a couple of them are people who have shunned/avoided me in the past), and they are also connected with my type of work so LinkedIn must be doing some kind of work to figure out who is already there and might be connected to my kind of thing.91.109.244.67 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, this is what LinkedIn does, it looks at your companies, looks at your job description, and attempts to connect you with peers you may not even realize are in the same job/industry as you. They do a good job with it too. Tuxhedoh (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible to give a web site access to your address book by accident, unless you happen to store your address book online with the same company that runs the web site in question. -- BenRG (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dell D630 - Touchpad does not move the mouse cursor

Windows XP - Dell D630 - Synaptics Touch Pad driver installed- and updated.

The system tray icon that shows the movement of your finger on the touchpad registeres movement. The scroll feature of the touchpad works on any window with a scroll bar. The double click works even. But it never actually moves the cursor on the screen. An external mouse works with out problems, and I've replaced the palm-rest/touchpad and it continues to happen. The touch stick in the middle of the keyboard works without problems. I have done many google searches and have not turned up much. Does anyone have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxhedoh (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to suggest something really obvious, but have you restarted? I recently updated the Synaptics driver on an older Dell laptop and I think I also had a frozen mouse cursor, but the problem went away, so I threw up my hands for the tenth time that day and stopped looking for answers. You might contact Synaptics and ask for some tech support because the update stopped the mouse from moving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep this is a newly imaged laptop and we noticed the problem before we updated the driver. It's been rebooted several times, as I actually replaced the palmrest/touchpad. Tuxhedoh (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be a borked driver— delete the device and the driver, scan for new hardware and reinstall. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For a definitive hardware test pop in an Ubuntu DVD (free!). It will load a Linux operating system into RAM and let you test the mouse completely outside of Windows. It will not modify your computer in any way. --mboverload@ 01:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So instead of Ubuntu, I moved the HD into an identical shell, effectively swapping all the hardware but the HD. Same behavior...I'm convinced it's a software problem, that I'm probably going to "re-image" in order to resolve. Tuxhedoh (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you try turning the touchpad on if it's off? --mboverload@ 01:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with my Computer?

Please expand and see the picture given on side. This is happening to all my menu based Windows progarms (Wordweb.exe and MSPaint are shown in this screenshot) - you can see ugly white rectungular backgrounds behind all menu-captions as I have marked in red. I am sure this is some malware etc. that has somehow sneaked into the system (No, I have almost no defences etc. ) The OS is XP. I am sure deleting a couple of files will set all things right. What which ones ? That's where I need your help. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You have tried restarting right? 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That's the first thing I did. Did'nt work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Is this for real? We aren't psychics. If you think it is malware, download some anti-malware software and give it a scan. We can't tell you "which files" it is to delete from a screenshot alone, if that is even the problem. If you are worried about malware, get some "defences etc." Don't waste our time with guessing games when the first step towards a solution is obvious to you. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this many times on Xp, sure it's not a virus - one thing to try - go to control panel>>system>>advanced tab>>performance (settings button)>>visual effects .. and from there check that you have visual effects turned on. (Try changing it and press apply) - It's a common bug in XP that some programs get confused about visual effects (more typically trying to use visual effects when they are turned off, or turning them on in-effectively).77.86.76.47 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have already rebooted, your other options are "Retry" and "Reinstall". I have not updated my Virtual MCSE for a while, but it does cover XP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really doubt this is malware. Doing something simply odd like this is a stretch for a joke/nuisance virus, and we hardly get any of those any more. Just something wrong with your theme/colour scheme, that's all. If you're worried about security, think about AVG Free, or something like Kaspersky Internet Security, if you're a heavier user. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From the screenshot alone, I'd have to guess your color settings are too low (32 maybe, not "true color"?) 82.43.90.93 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's this issue http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?threadID=229696 - as above - try resetting your theme to a standard type. also see [2] 77.86.76.47 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You were perfectly right ! It was bad adjustments (perhaps happened on their own - virus) I followed the links you provided and got to a site that described the exact problem. Did what they say. Now it's OK. The exact solution is actuallyhere Thanks, folks...you see we did'nt exactly waste time as 98 thinks... Jon Ascton  (talk)

Resolved

what is "pc decrapifier"

what is "pc decrapifier" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.144.204 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a slang term for a program that removes "crap" programs from a computer, such as spyware, trojans, and the like. -- kainaw™ 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps CCleaner (formerly Crap Cleaner). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This may also refer to the "Dell Decrapifier," which was a program originally created to be run on a brand new machine (Dell machines, in popular culture) that usually come loaded with bloatware, trailware and other pieces of software that the user typically does not need. Some of these run in the background and slow that machine down. See here --rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rocketrye12 is correct. 66, you should know that most people familiar with computers never boot a computer from the store with the pre-loaded operating system. They just load Windows or another OS from CD to avoid the crap that comes preinstalled.

I very much doubt that most people, even those familiar with computers would go to such lengths. Along with the crapware, many PCs these days come with useful stuff like Office, DVD players, and so on; stuff that you would normally have to pay full retail price for if it wasn't pre-loaded. By all means remove the crap, but to completely reinstall the OS just to avoid the crap is an expensive and long-winded step too far for the vast majority of PC buyers. Astronaut (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When I said experienced with computers, I meant people really experienced, as in computer enthusiasts. --mboverload@ 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See also: Crapware. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from being a slang term, there is an actual program called PC Decrapifier. PrinzPH (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ethernet hub

This is kinda detailed and involved, just a warning. Also this gives some background info on the situation. Ok, so I'm having trouble with my new ethernet hub. My computer (Windows 7) has two ethernet ports, one for the internet and one spare. I connected the spare ethernet port to the hub, and then connected a second computer (Windows XP) to the hub as well. Everything worked perfectly, both computers had the internet, I could map network drives, it worked beautifully. BUT, I don't want both ethernet ports on my Windows 7 computer in use at the same time, because it disrupts audio for some reason, I can't run some programs because they don't know which port to use, and I sometimes use the spare port for something else. So, I have now connected both computers directly to the hub, and then connected the internet ethernet cable into the hub as well. My Windows 7 computer has internet access, but the Windows XP computer doesn't. I can't map its drives over the network, and it displays "limited or no connectivity" on its desktop. What have I done wrong? And how can I make it work in this setup? Thank you for your help 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the brand and model of this hub? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"OfficeConnect dual speed hub 16" 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a hub does not provide routing. So, what is actually surprising is that either computer has internet connectivity, when you have set up that way. (This means that your cable-modem is "smart" and saved state about what MAC address it was originally connected to - but every packet is causing collisions, and your XP computer is gracefully ignoring them all, resulting in "limited or no connectivity"). You have connected your hub as if it were a router or a switch, even though it is not. As a result, your modem sends traffic to all connected devices, and your Windows 7 system is correctly handling this traffic; and because your XP system is not malicious and is not even responding to (what it perceives as) spurious network garbage, "everything works" for the Win7 system. Here is a short rundown of your options (keep in mind that in every case that uses the hub, it is connected to the modem through a device that acts as a router):

• Replace the hub with a network router (do not even use the hub)
• Add a router, network bridge, or network gateway to an uplink port (actually, any port) of your hub, and connect both computers to the hub
• Use the Windows 7 system (with its two ports) as the network router, and do not even use the hub (direct-connection to the WinXP box)
• Use the Windows 7 system as the router, connect it to the hub, and connect the WinXP box to the hub.

Really, the most straightforward network setup is to place a router at the top level of your network; then, if you even need the hub, connect it downstream. Most routers now also include a network switch built-in to their box, so you have 4-5 ports to connect computers to; if you use this arrangement, the hub is redundant unless you have dozens of machines to connect. If you don't want to buy a router, you will need to set up one of your computers as a software-router (by using Windows internet-connection sharing, or some other system like NetBSD or Linux that can provide DHCP and routing services). Also note that adding a hub will slow down network traffic when two computers are using the internet simultaneously (because it increases collisions, requires retransmits, and so forth). Also, note that if you can't trust computers directly-connected to your hub (this includes the computer inside your cable-modem), then the hub represents a security-risk, because it broadcasts all traffic to all connected machines. Nimur (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand. The problem is that using both ports on the Windows 7 computer, although everything works, causes problems with some programs which spew errors if I have both ethernet ports enabled at the same time. I previously tried using a Netgear DG834 modem router as you suggest to connect the computers, but it didn't work (see here for the thread I made about it). 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If your description of symptoms is accurate, then the problem is actually not with your hub (your original setup was correct, using both ports of the Win7 problem). But the symptoms you describe indicate some sort of driver-trouble or performance shortcoming of the Win7 system when both network ports are in use. Regarding the audio noise: sharing an internet connection requires some CPU resources (not much, but if your system is marginal already, this might push it over the edge); and it's also not unheard of for signals to leak noise onto your soundcard (EMI). Regarding programs that complain: most programs should just request a TCP socket to whatever server they want to connect to; and Windows should know enough to route it through the correct IP (ergo, through the correct network interface and thus the correct physical wire). But if you're doing weird things, some programs might not be using the right IP (and end up on your "internal LAN" instead of having access to the internet). Maybe you can elaborate on your win7 system's network card(s), and which programs are complaining about connectivity? Nimur (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you connect either PC to the Netgear modem-router using an ethernet cable, and point your internet browser at http://192.168.0.1/, are you asked to sign-in to the router's web interface? If it works for one PC and not the other, I would suspect the PC's network card is either broken, its drivers corrupted or some combination of settings on the PC is preventing a connection from being made. If both PCs fail to connect, it is also possible the modem-router is faulty (or the power is turned off!).

Assuming both PCs are able to connect to the modem-router, you should be able to enable file sharing on both PCs. If the internet is not working, you will need to set up your connection using the router's web interface and the instructions provided by your ISP. Astronaut (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)