@DavidPostill fair point, i guess it could just be coincidence

Actually, the previous version installed fine. I think I'll just mask this version (why didn't I think of that, either?)

Apparently I can't troubleshoot today :/

Hi I was wondering, I'm reading about networking (hubs). They transmit data from 1 device to another but, do they give internet access? Or you need to add a router to it?

And are switchs still in use?

@bob superuser.com/questions/286101

askleo.com/…

"What’s the difference between a hub, a switch, and a router?"

I like @JourneymanGeek's answer to the link posted by @BlacklightShining ;)

Yes I'm reading already on the topic but it seems like to doesn't give internet access, it only redirects traffic between devices

I would just like to know if I am right on this.

@bob Short answer: You need a router. Long answer: Read the links we have kindly provided for you.

I understand (and read them). Thank you

40,002 rep on SU ;)

Why can't I have some more privileges? ;)

I have another question, when you do a tcp connection (connect to a website) and close the tab, does it send a fin packet or, on the server side, get timeout and end the connection?

@bob Hmm, let's find out!

runs tcpdump, opens YouTube and closes tab

@DavidPostill That's actually a very good article.

I'm seeing RST packets. That makes sense.

That is what I did Blacklight! but there is too much packets lol

Yeah, there's a lot. You just have to be quick and skim. xD

That's what filters are for...

That too.

@bob Neither. Tabs have nothing to do with TCP connections.

I see it sends 5 FIN/ACK packets (I guess its fragmented)

I used the tcp filter

@qasdfdsaq I think it's a valid question in spirit.

@BlacklightShining But the answer is still neither.

What do you mean @qasdfdsaq

@bob Tabs have nothing to do with TCP connections.

@qasdfdsaq I interpreted the question as ending with “…or…?”

A non-naive client will not waste bandwidth by continuing to receive resources that aren't needed any longer

@BlacklightShining The question asked A or B. The answer is neither A or B.

by tab I mean open a firefox window, go on youtube.com then close the firefox window. Does it end the tcp connection with RST, FIN/ACK and ACK, or is it timeout?

A window has nothing to do with a TCP connection.

@qasdfdsaq And answering the question as-is in that way is incredibly unhelpful. I encourage you to adopt the habit of appending “…or…?” to such questions.

@BlacklightShining I encourage you to stop encouraging me.

And they are related, albeit indirectly.

And I'm not trying to be helpful.

:|

Well then, when I browse to a website, it doesn't make a tcp connection to the server?

Idk why it wouldn't

Usually, yes.

A connection is made if it needs to download resources.

The connection is closed as soon as the resources are downloaded, unless an extended keep-alive is in use.

@qasdfdsaq From my very unscientific test of one implementation under one set of conditions, RST. Off the top of my head, this makes sense: the connection should be closed quickly, to conserve bandwidth (and, actually, doesn't FIN only close one side of a connection?).

One reason a browser might not want to do that is in the spirit of HTTP keep-alive: if there isn't much more of the resource left to retrieve, it might just receive the rest of it, then keep the connection open so as to reuse it later. I don't know for sure that any implementation actually does that, though.

@BlacklightShining Some do keep alive. Some websites constantly send data (think streaming, chat, etc.)

But for standard web pages and HTTP requests they are closed as soon as the page is done loading.

Like this chat right here? It keeps the connection alive

@qasdfdsaq Eh, nowadays Connection: keep-alive is pretty darn common

Actually, isn't it the default in HTTP 1.1?

@qasdfdsaq That makes a lot of sense, now I understand!

In modern browsers a tab is really just a viewport.

On the one end, you are opening and closing a viewport into a chunk of memory. On the other end, part of the browser is generating an image in memory based on data it gets from the webserver.

But what if you close the tab while it is loading? Would that break the tcp connection?

Closing a tab would normally tell the "backend" to stop what's doing and cancel. If a web page was still in the process of loading, then yes, it should close connections and clean up after itself. Except when it doesn't.

But the backend could also be doing something completely unrelated at the time, such as reading from cache, generating content locally, or making DNS requests that have no TCP connections.

Also there's persistent shit and client-side web applications and all that voodoo

There's also that well, if it's almost done downloading anyway thing. If a page had an inline image that was almost done downloading, letting it finish, caching the image, and keeping the connection open might be a better idea than killing the connection (not that browsers can think for themselves like that)

Now I'm curious as to whether any browser actually does this.

No.

I figured no, but how can you be so sure?

But my point was, even loading a standard web page involves many things that don't involve TCP connections.

I just know things™

If the application was using keep-alive and you close the tab, it would send a FIN packet to the server?

If an application is closed then it should terminate all connections it still has open. Even if the application itself doesn't close the connection properly, Windows will do it for you.

s/Windows/the OS/

On windows the actual TCP connection is dealt with by Winsock. It'll close anything and clean up after an application if it doesn't do it itself.

by close you mean FIN ? or RST or...

Wow, RFC 793 hasn't been obsoleted?

RST probably.

@bob FINs only close one side of the connection.

Though really, half the messages get mangled by lower layers and NAT gateways anyway.

o/

Cat!

> Your search - allcatxotic - did not match any documents.

Dang it

> Standard Port Attributes	24x 10GbE RJ45 auto-sensing (10Gb/1Gb/100Mb) fixed ports
Integrated 40GbE QSFP+ dedicated ports	 2
Switch Fabric Capacity (full duplex):	1.28Tbps

Well those sound expensive.

> CPU Memory: 2GB

Since when did an ethernet switch require 2GB of RAM?!

What the heck is CPU memory

O_O

Xbox One is subject to servicing stack errors

@BlacklightShining RAM for the CPU. Obviously.

Do you mean RAM, or CPU cache, or the sum of the registers, or…?

HRESULT 0x80073CFE means "The package repository is corrupted."

@BlacklightShining Err... 2GB of CPU cache or 2GB of registers would be absurd.

@qasdfdsaq And 2 GiB of RAM for a simple switch isn't?

That shows just how similar the Xbox One software is to Windows proper.

Well 2GB of RAM exists for one.

Touché.

@BlacklightShining Well that's what I thought, but eh. I had a router with 4GB once.

My router has eight.

It's also a rackserver, so :P

Mine is was an old laptop.

Heheh. :)

More RAM than storage, wow…

Also 9MB packet buffer sounds big... but on that thing we're talking less than 2 milliseconds on the fastest ports...

On an ADSL modem it could make you end up with a ping of 72000ms.

Jesus christ. The scale of modern networks, eh?

Dell enterprise switch?

LOL

journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

It's real.

Open access, CC BY 3.0

theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/…

Might be worth pinning the comic—this is a monumental scientific discovery.

Interesting how a scientific article is transformed in a popular science article.

Urgh.

Just had ANOTHER MicroSD card die.

@Bob

I think I'm going to copy you and set up Owncloud.

That's four? Five? MicroSD cards in a row that have died on me

@DavidPostill DNS seems to be broken for that domain

@bwDraco Yes

Trying to figure out how best to use our 40 spare 10GbE ports and 64 spare 40GbIB ports

Easy. Step 1 pack them., Step 2 mail some of them to me :)

Umm...yeah...No.

We still have an HPCC connected to the rest of the ports...

That might be a tad loud in a house :)

It takes up three racks in a datacentre. And it's loud in there.

Combination of the above

Although quite why we have a completely unused 24-port 40-gigabit Infiniband switch, sitting unused, not connected to anything, and not on the inventory puzzles me.

Part of the problem is we have 40 machines without 10GbE cards, and 20 machines without Infiniband cards.

Re unused swirch. Hmm, yeah. It is not the sort of cheap thing you forget about. Or order as a spare without putting it into the inventory lists

Yeah. It's just... sitting there.

I've been looking after this cluster for nearly a year now, and nobody ever bothered mentioning this thing was here.

All the plans, purchase orders, invoices, etc. list 4x Intel IB switches. This one... is marked IB-5

There's also a pile of 20 unused 10GbE SFP+ modules lying aruond that nobody ordered

Quick question about USB Power Delivery.

I know that over USB Type-C cabling, one can carry up to 100 W (5A @ 20V), but that's not enough for some devices.

Perhaps they'll extend it again to allow yet more power (10A @ 24V, anyone)?

Perhaps. Perhaps not

I suppose they'll probably mandate the use of a certain type of active cable for safety as 240 W is no laughing matter...

Not useful as an answer, but we cannot read minds so it is the best I can give

BTW: charging my phone atm with a type C to micor B cable :)

dd

I am curious if this will aso be notacible faster

My phone does USB Type-C and I have A to C cables.

Galaxy S5... micro usb 3 (and C on the desktop)

Takes up to 15 W (3A @ 5V) of power that way, but you need a capable charger to charge that fast.

My power banks can only do about 2-2.4 A.

At least my Nexus 5X will draw as much power as the source can safely supply, so it does charge as quickly as the source allows.

> Charging rapidly

anandtech.com/show/9742/the-google-nexus-5x-review/5

@BlacklightShining Huh? Which domain?

I can't think of anything that draws over 100w that needs to be charged via USB...

@qasdfdsaq Laptops might use USB in place of proprietary power connectors in the future. Apple already does this.

But what about high-end gaming laptops, which are becoming increasingly popular as portable replacements for gaming desktops?

My laptop uses a 180 W (9.5A @ 19V) adapter.

That doesn't answer the question.

Sure, the world may be moving to lighter, lower-power systems, but allowing one unified connector to serve even high-power devices would be a boon for everyone.

Not only is there no need, I can't think of a single benefit either

And I don't want a brick the size of your 180 adapter strapped to the back of each of my devices.

It would dramatically simplify connectivity. High-power devices can simply refuse to charge, charge slowly, or even just discharge the battery slower (drawing power from both battery and USB) if they are plugged into a USB power source that isn't powerful enough.

Which is what we already have...

Why would we want to put a bigger connector on all devices (including phones, tablets, etc.) for the potential benefit of a few gaming laptop owners who probably wouldn't benefit from it anyway.

@qasdfdsaq nice big 4k monitors without their own PSU ?

@Hennes Assuming you want to power it off your internal PSU, I can't think of any that use more than 400w.

Aye.

err

100w*

3 daisy chained monitors? (esp with thunderbolt3/DP also in there)

Or an external graphics card?

Plus given most USB-C ports only deliver 15w, you'd be severely crippling your sales if your monitor could only be powered off a USB-C connector.

Granted, I would just give it its own PSUI

Meh, just combine a dozen ports. I saw them to that with USB2 :)

@Hennes External graphics card for what?

Laptop batteries have a hard time supplying 100w as it is. You want to run 300w off a laptop battery?!

I somehow don't think running a 200w external GPU off the internal power of a laptop is a particularly realistic usage scenario.

in SLI. :)

But yeah, I agree

lol. Yeah, very kludgey

Tempted to get the HDD out of that external case and replace it with an SSD

But 2.5" drives would normally run fine off a USB-3 port

'Burning' a iso to USB atm so I can install a clean windows 10. If that works (withou registration issues) I will change the disk with the SSD currently holding win10

I only got my first USB3 PORT last week

o_0

And I thought I was slow

plenty devices. No ports on my X58/i7-920 motherboard

I got my first in 2012.

Moving from USB 2 to USB 3.1 A, USB 3.1 C and a quad USB 3.0's

My 2012 laptop came with 2 USB-2 ports and one USB-3 on an extra controller.

Last year I bought a USB-3 card for my X58 board

Then I got a Z170 board like two months later.

I never saw the need. Most data was on internal disks or via eSATA

But this month I ordered a skylake build

Yeah, that's why I never really bothered either. But my flatmate likes sharing stuff with me on a USB stick.

Good Z170 motherboard, cheap 2 core CPU. VVery cheap SSD (Eur 60 for 240GB. A BX200)

Oh.

Which sort of seems acceptable.

We were just discussing the BX200 in here the other day

That SSD will become a pen drive.

Aye. Got one. The system feels slow

Not sure if it is the SSD yet, or win10, or something else

I had a period of using SSDs as a pen drive, but it's just so much more convenient haing an actual pen drive

Too many changes at once, so I am comparing applies with oranges if I base it just on the SSD

Will know soon since the new install will be on a Samsung 951 NVME drive

Considering the reason we were talking about it the other day was because of how slow it was, I can guarantee it's not helping

My comparision is X58/win7/Intel 80GB MLC (and HW RAID for data)

Still, for that price I figured it might be a nice external HDD with more resistance to shocks

The complate system is this:

I think I put my Crucial MX100 in my old laptop

Samsung SM951 - NVMe - 512GB (MZVPV512HDGL-00000).

A 10GbE card. (mellanox X2)

And once I am used to win10 I might move my GTX960 over from the main desktop

And or add a SAS6 HW RAID card and a pair old 2TB drives for data

But after that I run out of PCIe slots

Eh, can't think of any advantage of getting a SAS RAID controller.

I got one collecting dust

I have several too, but still don't use them.

And I got 4x1Tb and 2x2TB for data.

Seems a shame not to use them.

They use more power than my drives do.

Though they do tend to use quite some power (20W for the one in my desktop atm)

Heh. Was just typing that

I mostly got it to put in a Dell R300. Power on via DRAC. rsync backups. power down

woof

Daily vote limit reached....again

O_o

@DavidPostill phdcomics.com.

@BlacklightShining superuser.com

@ThatBrazilianGuy You're missing context.

Context, the bus to work, money on my wallet... Just one more thing on the list.

@ThatBrazilianGuy lol, my prediction was super prophetic! 9 stars in less than 24 hours!

@allquixotic uses Prediction. It's super effective! @allquixotic is a Psychic-type creature.

@BlacklightShining Works here ;)

Just finished downloading Final Fantasy IX for Android. Takes up about 3.1 GB installed.

You know you've been playing/watching too much Hearthstone when someone yawns at work and you immediately expect them to say "I am NOT a morning person."

@bwDraco and yet 16GB NAND is enough for anyone, right?

@allquixotic Has the new format been introduced yet?

Anyone here up to date on VT, VT-x, VT-d ?

We got tags for all three, and I somehow doubt that we need the VT one

They're like, 10 years old

@allquixotic Link2SD can create filesystem links on user data, system data, apps and OBB data

For reference, the original PlayStation release of the game spanned four CDs.

I think I'm gonna get a 128GB memory card for my phone

That's 2.8 GB of raw space, though it's probably closer to 1.5-2 GB due to redundancy of data across discs.

@bwDraco Cool! FFIX is my next Android game purchase! :D

My last phone had 128GB

The remastered HD-quality FMVs and higher-resolution assets account for the increase in size.

@DavidPostill Doesn't work, here. Neither of the designated nameservers is responding to queries.

usgamer.net/articles/…

> Final Fantasy IX is On Mobile, But You Need High-End Hardware to Run It

Non-flagship devices may have trouble running the game.

Lmao. Can't think of any reason to play it on my phone, but meh w/e

On iOS:

> You also shouldn't attempt to run the app with anything less than an iPhone 5S, a fourth generation iPad, or a sixth generation iPod Touch.

In other words, your iOS device must have a 64-bit processor to run the game.

Playing it on a laptop is enough of a pain as it is

@Bob has been breeding.

imgur.com/eb0cphL

What's with that albino fox?

It stands out so much from the rest...

> But mobile gaming is quickly becoming complicated. Whereas the platform was once synonymous with simple distractions like Angry Birds, Doodle Jump, Bejeweled, and other games your trusty iPhone 3G could run without a problem, newer titles (particularly adaptations of console and / or PC games) require increasing amounts of space and processing power. A growing number of mobile games won't even run on my iPhone 5 anymore.

AAA gaming on mobile and all the issues that go with it.

wtf

@bwDraco Hmm... Is that the equivalent to Platinum for NA?

Only two more days:

...and then people wonder why I don't get excited for Carnaval:

@MichaelFrank Yes, it is.

Carnaval would be nice if people were nice aqnd quit and did not drink alcohol

@bwDraco Cool. I can't remember if I have an original release or a Platinum copy.

The Greatest Hits label is still in use for rereleases of PS4 games that hit a certain sales mark (an example is the launch title Knack).

@Hennes Urgh. So many bad answers, all it's doing is perpetuating urban myths and misinformation

@qasdfdsaq If you're quick enough you might get it in before me! :P

So, give a good answer. I do not want to answer it myself

I wanted people to close things as a duplicate with the dup being a good answer

@bwDraco Ahh yea, definitely the same then. We had the "Only the best go Platinum!" advertising here during the PS1/2 era.

...although not having to go to work for 10 days straigth is quite nice, I admit ;p

I wrote a little answer to give an idea of what might be fun

Actually I'd rather vote-to-close based on the fact it's highly opinion based and has already attracted a ton of poor opinions stating incorrect information.

In fact the ridiculous levels of PSU overprovisioning is probably one of the things I find most infuriating.

It is. Hence it needs a good answer

It's important to account for possible upgrades and to have some headroom for reliability and efficiency, but using a 1000W PSU to run a single-GPU machine is not necessary.

And not a bloody list of current values (correct or not) which will quickly get aoutdated

1000 W will handle two-way and most three-way GPU arrays.

Aye. And most PSU seem most efficient in a range, so a bigger PSU might even be worse

> GeForce GTX 970 - 28A and a 500W PSU minimum

Oh really. ^

I guess my power meter that shows my heavily overclocked watercooled GTX 970 system using 280w while gaming is lying then.

I'd recommend 400 watts as the minimum for that card.

For most people a 350-450W PSU is plenty. Preferably a good brand name which will not explode and take things with it

Yup.

450 watts for a GTX 980, 500 watts for a GTX 980 Ti.

I went 450W for a 960 (and lots of other hardware)

ANY single gpu with ANY standard processor will run fine on a <=500w PSU

But for 99% of us: Hell yes

Hence I said "standard"

An overclocked processor aint standard ;)

If overclocking, you may want to add anywhere from 50 to 200 W depending on the processor and the extent to which the processor will be overclocked.

Aye

For Skylake, I'd add 100 W of headroom for overclocking.

A heavily overclocked will use up to 150-200w more than the stock rating but if you are overclocking that far, you'd better know what you're doing.

Because you'd have to be using liquid nitrogen or other sub-zero cooling to even get close.

And if you're a professional/competitive overclocker... well you don't need to listen to me.

Realistically most good quality power supplies will provide 20% MORE than their rated power. I haven't seen a single power supply tested by a professional review site lately that did not provide more than its rated power.

$15 500w+ PSUs off Ebay need not apply.

A high-grade gaming machine with a pair of GTX 980 cards and HEDT processor (e.g. i7-5930K) should be expected to need about 600 to 650 watts under full load.

Under peak load, yes.

Under typical gaming load, it'll average a lot less.

I'd probably provision about 700-800 watts for extra headroom and upgradeability, but 1000 W is not necessary.

The only time it'll use 600 to 650 watts is if you're deliberately trying to fry it with two copies of Furmark and Prime95.

@BlacklightShining IP is 64.29.145.9

At that level provisioning extra for upgradability is even more pointless.

What are you going to upgrade to that uses more power than the most power hungry components that you can currently buy?

Possibly upgrading to something like a 980 Ti and extra drives.

Chances are anything you "upgrade" will be newer and more efficient.

I'd rather not have to replace the PSU on an upgrade.

My old 400W Corsair PSU will safely handle 450W.

(I'd consider the rating to be the maximum continuous rate—would prefer not to exceed that number for more than a few seconds at a time.)

That I can agree with. Any proper supply should sustain the rated power 24/7, and exceed it for short periods.

That ancient desktop actually shipped with a 250 W PSU.

A video card upgrade necessitated replacing the PSU, but it wasn't meant for gaming, just everyday use before it was retired.

I have a 430w supply in my server that has 26 drives. It'll happily deliver 485w before the overload protection kicks in.

Alright, gotta go.

My 860w desktop supply was tested to deliver 980w before overload protection kicks in. And you can turn it off if you want.

According to Anandtech, a GTX 980 Ti at full load, while running a stress test, uses 386w total power for the entire system

386w. That's total system power draw at the wall.

Factoring in power supply inefficiencies, that's about 350w system draw.

> GeForce GTX 980ti - 38A and a 600W PSU minimum

Bosy, girls. Post it in an answer. And I happily up to bounty. But as it is most answers are not up to par and most bloody answers on the rest of the site suck goat balls.

^^ bull shit.

(that bull shit wasn't directed at you)

I tend to provision for the TDP rather than the gaming SDP to ensure reliability, though.

I'm on mobile now and it's so cold my phone's display is running very slow. See ya.

So Dell will sell you an enterprise server with two 300w graphics cards and two 105w processors with a 1100w PSU. That includes a pile of 15k RPM SAS drives, a 6.4TB SSD and 10GbE network cards.

That's basically 550w for a high-end 8-core CPU, a graphics card 20% more powerful than a GTX 980 Ti, high end hard drives, SSDs, and 10GbE networking. In an OEM certified enterprise server, designed to run 24/7 under heavy load in 40'c room temperature.

Hey @Bob, were you gonna answer that Q?

facepalm twitter.com/XboxP3/status/697814743185108992

@tereško Wow.. That guy is a tool.

@qasdfdsaq What Q? o.O

So cold, my phone's CPU temperature sensor underflowed.

@bwDraco ...more that it's just badly programmed

And probably never accounted for negative temperatures.

.. or your sensor is actually borked

Night all

O crap howtogeek.com/241329/…

Gotta tell my brother to turn off automatic updates now

sounds like I will be visiting my parents soon, because there will be two fucked up PCs

can Edge do IE7 emulation?

no

IE can do IE emulation, that's why both are/were in w10

oh

lmao

IE emulating IE...

yeah, because internet exploder is so screwed up

@bwDraco Get your phone out of the boiling water!

@bwDraco Or the freezing ice...

I'm surprised a thermal shutdown didn't happen.

@bwDraco See above re: your software being stupid.

@DavidPostill heh. I wonder if I dumb those down too much

also, blah. Ubuntu minimal installs can be rediculously slow to install ._.

If I had a rediculously large hard drive, I'd probably host my own mirror

actually, its only a terabyte.

@JourneymanGeek I'm sure the less technical readers appreciate a good analogy ;)