So how much faster can quantum computers perform than their digital counterparts? Before purchasing their own D Wave system a few years back, Google put it through its paces and found that when the problem size got to the 500 qubit size range, the D Wave system outperformed its binary cousins by 10,000 times – a solid win in anyone's book.More recently, Google and NASA found that a D Wave 2 system with 1,097 qubits outperformed existing supercomputers by more than 3,600 times (and personal computers by 100 million x) on an optimization problem, solving it in mere seconds.
I need to point out that we shouldn't get out over our skis when it comes to quantum computing. These performance numbers I'm citing are from corner cases that hit right on the quantum sweet spot. General computing use performance still lags and programming one of these beasts is still more art than science.Still, I'm intrigued, and want to learn more about quantum computing and the D Wave boxes in particular. Is there RAID on the motherboard? How about PCIe 3? I actually did ask the RAID question in the video – and Bo didn't slap me.

StorageBod I see quite a few posts about this storage or that storage ... how it is going to change everything or has changed everything. And yet, I see little real evidence that storage usage is really changing for many. So why is this?It depends. Replacing block with object is somewhat hard. You can’t really get the performance out of it – you will struggle with the APIs especially to drive performance for random operations and partial updates.Replacing file with object is somewhat easier. Most unstructured data could happily be stored as object and it is. It’s an object called a file. I wonder how many applications even using S3 APIs treat Object Storage as anything other than a file-store, how many use some of the extended metadata capabilities?In many organisations what we want is cheaper block and file. If we can fake this by putting a gateway device in front of object storage, that’s what we will do. The object vendors have woken up to this and that is what they are doing.But if a vendor can do "native" file with some of the availability advantages of a well-written erasure coding scheme at a compelling price point, we won’t care.I’m afraid from my limited sample size; I find this is rarely the case. Most seem to want to interact with file-systems or databases for their persistence layer. Now the nature of the databases that they want interact with is changing with more becoming comfortable with NoSQL databases.

• Battery for Dell Latitude E4320


• Battery for Dell Latitude E4310


• Battery for Dell Latitude E4300


• Battery for Dell Latitude E4200


• Battery for Dell Inspiron 9300


• Battery for Dell Inspiron 6000


• Battery for Dell 07FJ92


• Battery for Dell 0J70W7


• Battery for lenovo IdeaPad Z570


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad Y710

Most applications just don’t produce enough data to warrant any kind of persistence layer that requires Object or even any kind of persistence layer at all.Developers rarely care about what their storage is, they just want it to be there and work according to their needs.Only if Technology Y does not continue to develop and only if Technology X has a really good economic advantage. I do see a time when NAND could replace rotational rust for all primary storage but for secondary and tertiary storage? We might still be a way off.It also turns out that many people have a really over-inflated idea about how many IOPs their application need; there appears to be a real machismo about claiming that you need 1,000s of IOPS… when our monitoring shows that someone could write with a quill pen and still fulfil the requirement. Latency does turn out to be important – when you do your 10 IOPS, you want it to be quick.An individual gigabyte is basically free; a thousand of these is pretty cheap but a billion gigabytes is starting to get a little pricey.In my real life, I get to see a lot of people who request a terabyte of storage for a server because hell, even their laptop has this amount of storage. But for many servers, a terabyte is a huge amount of storage ... many applications just don’t have this level of requirement for persistent data. A terabyte is still a really large database for many applications – unless the application developers haven’t bothered to write a clean-up process.

Buy a calculator and factor in your true costs. Work out what compromises you might have to make and then work out what that is worth to you.You could but is it really your core business? Don’t try to compete with the web-scale companies unless you are one ... focus on providing your business with the service it requires.It changed, you should change too but there is still a role for people who want to manage the persistent data-layer in all its forms. It’s no longer storage … it’s persistence. ON-CALL+POLL Welcome again to On-Call, our weekly (and preponderantly prurient) piece in which readers share horror stories from their workplaces.This week, we're going interactive, because the situation in which reader “Flash” found himself describes an ethical dilemma The Reg feels un-qualified to address.Flash once had a gig “managing the email server for a manufacturing company in Los Angeles".Flash quickly noticed that “customers (hell, everyone) could not be trusted to type an email address correctly.” So he set up a catch-all address and every day scanned that inbox so he could send typo-blocked emails to the right person.

• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad Y550


• Battery for LENOVO IdeaPad U310


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad U160


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad U110


• Battery for LENOVO IdeaPad S300


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad S100


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad S12


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad S10-3 0647-29U


• Battery for Lenovo IdeaPad S9


• Battery for Lenovo G575

One day, Flash recovered an email from one sales person to another. As was his prudent habit, Flash retrieved the email.Some back story: the sales people were often on the road and were married, but not to each other. Which is why Flash's mind boggled as he read an email from the male sales person that “described in great detail the joy he had the previous day during their encounter at a motel.”The mail “went on to describe, again in great detail, every little thing he was going to do with her body during their next encounter. Absolutely nothing was left to the imagination. It could have been used as the script for a porn flick.”Reading that mail left Flash with the dilemma we need your help to solve.“I was trusted and respected by both management and rank-and-file alike,” he mailed El Reg. “I wanted everyone to continue trusting me.”Hinting to one of the parties that they should knock it off - or at least the graphic emailing - would make Flash identifiable as an email snoop and/or snitch. Correcting the mis-typed email and letting it reach its intended recipient would make him complicit in the affair and Flash didn't like the idea of that, either.

To add a comment please login by clicking here