Yep, a new look for the website

While the previous design of this website was relatively simple and pretty easy to navigate, it started to feel heavy and cramped. So, I decided to take a theme that I customized for one of the other sites I’ve worked on and massaged it for this site.

Gone are the heavy black surrounds, ribbons and left-margin post dates and say hello to a very simple design with muted shades. Like the previous design, the content blocks are fixed-width and sticks with the dark text on a light background. There are some other design elements that need to be worked on, including the use of other fonts and maybe a bit more nipping and tucking of block paddings and margins.

Hope you like it!

ARMy of Servers and Project Moonshot

In my first blog post about building out servers with ARM processors, I had mentioned that one could build a high-density scale-out server infrastructure by fitting 20 blades into a 3U chassis:

How would 20 ARM-based server nodes be able to fit into a 3U chassis? It has been done before, even with nodes that pull more than 15-20W each. Both Sun Microsystems and Compaq had a 3U blade server chassis that supported 20 blades (with one UltraSPARC IIe/IIi or one Pentium M processor, 1-2GB of RAM and one 2.5″ hard drive bay) and an Ethernet switch or pass-through module. One can use the same blade setup, use smaller and more efficient power supplies and cooling (as the need for power and cooling with be a lot less than 20W per blade), update the switch to support Gigabit downstream ports and 10Gbps Ethernet uplink ports, and reduce the chassis depth. I would even bet that one could find a way to fit 20 nodes in 2U of space without sacrificing any functionality or availability.

Well, HP has taken that idea and ratcheted it up to a very impressive scale. Project Moonshot crams 72 server nodes into a 2U half-width tray housing eighteen Calxeda EnergyCards and four external 10Gb/s XAUI ports. Four of those trays can slot into a 4U SL6500 chassis, for a total of 288 nodes (72 nodes per 1U). Each EnergyCard contains four EnergyCore processors with up to 4GB per processor and 4 SATA ports, all while drawing 25 watts. In turn, each EnergyCore processor comes in both two and four Cortex-A9 core configurations and has a high-throughput fabric switch built-in. The fabric switch provides multiplexed access to five 10Gb/s XAUI ports and six 1Gb/s SGMII ports, all of which is wrapped around by three 10GbE MAC ports. Each EnergyCore also provides five SATA ports, several PCIe controllers and an SD/eMMC controller (say, for booting an operating system).

While such an impressive setup may not immediately fit into common enterprise workloads, don’t be surprised to see these things popping up at places where companies need an enormous amount of light/moderate duty workloads that can be scaled out across thousands of threads; and, where the cost of power and cooling are at a premium. Both Ubuntu and Fedora can be used, though Windows Server 8 might be an option if Microsoft deems it to be worth the time and money.

Taking care of my fisheye lens lust issue

Over the past several weeks, I have had lens lust building up again; even though, I recently picked up a PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED tilt/shift lens. I am just starting to learn how to use the new lens, but still felt something was missing.

That emptiness was for another creative, niche lens: a fisheye lens of some kind. The first fisheye lens that I have always considered for my D300 body is the Nikon AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED. The lens has received some really good reviews and provides a 180-degree angle of view. The problem with the lens is that the price range is between $710-750 and it isn’t very useful if/when I move to a full-frame body.

The other fisheye lens that I have strongly considered is the Lensbaby Fisheye Optic that I could use with my Lensbaby Composer. The optic has a focal length of 12mm and provides a fully circular image when used on a full-frame body or a traditional fisheye image on a cropped-sensor body. It may not have the same level of optic quality as the Nikon fisheye lens, but the creative options would more than make up for any optical limitations. I would also be limited to manually focusing the lens, which isn’t a real pain due to the depth-of-field when stopped down. The optic-only route would only cost about $150; though, one can get it bundled with the Lensbaby Scout for $100 more at about $250.

I also looked at the Sigma fisheye lenses available, but the options were either designed specifically for full-frame or cropped-sensor bodies, but not really for both. There is still the issue with cost and having to be really, really cautious in handling the lenses due to the exposed front element.

So, I decided to go down the Lensbaby option and picked up the Lensbaby Scout with Fisheye Optic kit. Why would I spend the extra $100 for the Scout when I already have the Composer? Very, very simple… the Scout does not have the tilting feature that the Composer has and keeps the Optic centered. It also allows me to dedicate my Composer for another optic kit: the Sweet 35 Optic (but that’s for a future post).

Using the Scout and the Fisheye Optic is very simple to use, though mounting the Scout on to my D300 isn’t quite as smooth as mounting the Composer (a bit more resistance). Unlike the other Lensbaby optics (excluding the Sweet 35 Optic), swapping out the aperture disks requires unscrewing the front element piece. Other than that difference, I treat it like any other manual focus lens. If you have a Nikon body that allows for non-CPU lens data to be entered, you will want to key it in. I also had to tweak the exposure compensation depending on the lighting conditions.

Is it a perfect alternative to the Nikon or Sigma fisheye lenses? Not exactly, as some would prefer having an auto-focus lens over a pure manual-focus lens. Also, the Lensbaby Fisheye Optic still has many of the qualities of a Lensbaby optic, which may not be optimal for creating panoramas or 100% accurate architectural compositions. I may still pick up an appropriate fisheye lens for those tasks at some point in the future.

Wait Wait Stats Update: Not My Job Data

I have finished entering the list of Not My Job guests into the Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! Stats Page database; although, I have not included any guest scores as that will be a nice process of listening to the older shows.

I am now working on adding in show descriptions for shows, filling the void between 2000 and 2004. This process will probably take a couple of weeks to complete. Thankfully, it isn’t quite as tedious as entering in the list of Not My Job guests. Please note that I am basing the show descriptions on what is listed in the show archives on NPR.org, so the level of detail may vary dramatically.

Once that has been completed, I will work on filling in the data for shows prior to 2000. It’s just easier to do it in chunks, particularly when the really early show information pages aren’t as easy to parse.

Wait Wait Stats Update: Panelist Appearances (Part 3)

I have finished entering in all of the panelist appearances into the database for the Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! Stats Page. Unfortunately, the panelist scores are still void since that data will have to be collected and entered through other means.

It is also unfortunate that a lot of the earlier show audio is no longer available through the Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! archives, so I will need to figure out other means to procure that information.

Next up? I’m going to try to finish filling in the Not My Job guest appearances.

Wait Wait Stats Update: Panelist Appearances (Part 2)

When the latest version of the Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! Statistics Page gets published later today, you might notice a couple of new additions. The one that that I have finished implementing is displaying the percentage of appearances that each panelist has gotten first, tied for first, second, tied for second and third place. This should be a better indicator on how well a panelist has done based on how often their appeared on the show.

The other additions to the page hint at an upcoming feature that I am currently coding up: statistics for both the show hosts and scorekeepers. At this point, I’m not sure exactly what statistics will be displayed. I don’t have a timeline on when I will have the new feature ready for release.