What are the essential differences Between ext2 - ext3 and ext3 - ext4? [closed] - unix

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
i really want to know the essential differences between those filesystems, for example the inodes pointer Structure and so on!
Thank you

Ext2 is the first version of the filesystem created in 1993. It is stable and secure and can support volumes up to 4 TB. It doesn't have any form of journaling. It can be used for partitions that doesn't require journaling functions like boot partitions.
Ext3 is more secure and consistent compared to ext2. It has a journaling function that doesn't require a lot of disks access. It is quite slow compared to ext4. It can be used with file with high-variable dimension and server-files.
Ext4 have high performances compared to its predecessors. It uses RAM to optimize read/write operations limiting access time. It is suggested for desktop use but not so recommended for servers (considering its young age).

Related

If I were downloading a file from a website, what could be the slowest sustainable transfer rate [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a lot of general networking knowledge, but I am unsure about some of the specifics. This topic was lead to me through a question within my statistics class discussing discrete or continuous variables.
The example used the time to download a file from a website.
I know that the maximum speed that a file is capable of being transferred is directly related to the speed of the connection, the protocol used, network conditions, and can be slightly enhanced (or degraded) by the use of compression. Regardless, the fastest possible speed can be calculated for any given connection, but I have never found any information detailing what the minimum sustained transfer rate could be.
Is it possible to go below 1bps?
The minimum for any kind of transfer is 0 unit/second.
If someone temporarily unplugs your router from the internet, during the seconds the router is unplugged you will have 0 bps. If the disconnection is short the connection could recover, but during the disconnect you will have no transfering of data.

Encryption or security practice for single time use [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Id like to encrypt a file and share it. I'd like the file to be decrypted just one time. I was wondering if there are security or encryption protocols that can be used to implement a 1 time use scenario. In simple terms the decryption key would only be good one time.
No it's not possible, with any kind of computer and any kind of OS.
What you want is called a DRM, and your file would need to be read by a program you've coded that would destroy the file (and the decoding key) after reading. But in order to protect the decyphering program from being copied, you'd have to sign the application against your OS, and make your OS protect that file from deletion. And in order to protect your OS from being copied with the file within, you'd have to use a computer that has a chip in the CPU making everything uncopiable... That's called trusted computing.
And though it may theoretically work, it would still be possible to keep a copy of your file, and use a super computer for up to 1000 years (or one hour, depending on your algorithm and the size of your key) to find your decription key, and thus access your precious content.
For the story, sony has tried putting DRMs in their CDs, and that's what they end up creating.

Is it possible to lock an SD card so it only operates on a certain device? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking to provide some properiatary software with the raspberry pi as the platform (but this could be with any embedded board). I'm looking for a way for the file system to only be visible on that device.
Is this possible? How?
You could encrypt the whole disk or the volume using LUKS or dm-crypt if your distribution supports it. It's also possible to encrypt files or directories on the disk while leaving the file-system mountable (but scrambled). If you go the latter route, it would be a good coding experience to write your own software that encrypts files and then de-crypts them when a key is entered.
Either way, you'll run into an issue: Before using the clear data, someone has to input the key. If the key is stored on the card, nothing prevents an attacker reading the key from a stolen card. If it's input by a person, that person needs to manually enter the key after every boot.

How frequent are network partitions on cloud services? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Much is made of the CAP trade-off for data storage where conflicts can be introduced if there is a network partition.
My question is there any evidence that this is a problem that arises with any significant frequency in modern cloud IAAS services e.g.; EC2, Azure, Rackspace.
Is it a problem which, despite being a theoretical roadblock in constructing idealised distributed systems is, in fact, a non-issue for all practical concerns?
Has anyone experienced a network partition within one of these systems (within a single data-centre?) If so would you be willing to share any details?

Are CPU registers and CPU cache different? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Are CPU registers and CPU cache different?
Yes, CPU register is just a small amount of data storage, that facilitates some CPU operations.
CPU cache, it is a high speed volatile memory which is bigger in size, that helps the processor to reduce the memory operations.
It is not very inaccurate to think of the processor's register as the level 0 cache, smaller and faster than the other layers of cache in-between the processor and memory. The difference is only that from the point of view of the instruction set, cache access is transparent (the cache is accessed through a memory address that happens to be a cached address at the moment) whereas registers are explicitly referenced in each instruction.
registers are special temporary storage locations within the CPU that very quickly accept,store and transfer data and instructions that Are immediately used.cache memory is a very fast used by the CPU of computer that is used to frequently request data and instructions

Resources