Archive for September, 2009

BMWotD — 1991 735i C4C

Friday, September 4th, 2009

What a shame. What a crying flippin’ shame.

I drove through the local VW/Audi dealer’s lot earlier this week, just to see what they’ve got on hand, and saw this gorgeous Burgundrot 735i sitting along the back fence. I’m guessing it’s about a ’91; doesn’t really matter I guess, because this is as close as I’ll get to owning it… It’s a Cash for Clunkers trade in. Even though the bad joke of program is over & done with, seeing this car makes me mad & sad all over again.

Cosmetically, the car is in decent shape. It’s missing a center cap on one of the rear Style 2 wheels, but no big deal there. The tires are in decent shape. The interior looks pretty clean. There’s no rust anywhere that I can see. The undercarriage is very clean. Just looks like a very nicely kept Big Bimmer. The engine & transmission are total unknowns, and might have been huge problems, but with these cars, most any issue aside from rust can be sorted out without much fuss.

But it’s headed for the crusher anyway.

The Cash For Clunkers program was such a stupid idea to begin with… $2.88 billion in taxpayer money (and borrowed money) was dumped into this program in an effort to stimulate the economy by giving a boost to slumped auto sales, and to pull ‘older’ ‘inefficient’ cars off the road, replacing them with newer more fuel efficient cars. At first, the program was funded with a billion dollars, with the idiots in Congress thinking the program would run for a couple of months. When that money ran out in the first week, the program was hailed as a huge success and given another two billion dollars. Interesting how ‘success’ was defined here, as if handing out free money could somehow ‘fail’.

From what I remember of what was said about the program when it was first introduced was that it was primarily meant to help the US automakers, but guess which cars sold the best… Imports. And the short-term impact on the economy was barely perceptible, and still economists wonder whether the meager boost came at the cost of sales that would’ve happened later anyway. And how many of the nearly 700,000 people who took advantage of the program overextended themselves financially & will end up defaulting on their auto loans. The supposed environmental aims of the program were realized, but at what economic cost? Especially when you consider the environmental impact of building a new car and disposing of the old one.

But I’ll set aside the economics and politics of C4C for a moment and focus on one of the things I hate the most about the program; the fact that perfectly serviceable cars — like this 735i — are going to be scrapped. There’s no second chance for them; the title is blackmarked & made ineligible for being resold ever again, and the shell is crushed. Some may have easily salvageable parts pulled and resold by a recycler, but the engines get horked over by having them run until the bearings seize up from the dose of sodium silicate dumped into the crankcase in place of oil. In many cases, the dealers could potentially sell the cars for more than the $4,500 maximum that the previous owner got from the government, but now the dealers can do nothing but sit on their hands waiting for the promised checks to be sent out by the bureaucrats overseeing the program. Makes me wonder how high the opportunity cost would be to the dealers from all that money sitting in limbo. With help like that…

Sorry if I sound bitter about this, but I just hate to see a car as nice as this go to waste. I’ll get over it, but it would at least ease my pain if I could somehow get my hands on the wheels & brakes from this thing; that’d be a nice upgrade for my 528! Ok, now I sound greedy. Guess it’s just the cheapskate dumpster-diver in me.

How About A Local Area Network RAID Array?

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

I was in the process of setting up another new iMac for a user at work the other day, and got to looking at the hard drive — the ‘entry level’ 24″ iMac comes standard with a dual-core 2.66GHz processor, 4GB of memory and a 600GB hard drive. Much of that capacity (other than that memory) just won’t get used. There will be times when the processors will peak a bit, but most of the time they’ll be just barely above idle. And the hard drive… 600GB? On a desktop machine? If the computer were used in a home setting, that might get utilized, but here… Boy could I use some of that capacity for other stuff on the network! I guess I could just buy some cheap 100GB SATA drives and swap them out, but I’ve seen the gymnastics necessary to replace a drive in an iMac, and I don’t want to go through that any more than absolutely necessary.

I remember back when Apple was first rolling out OS X, there was talk of these super apps that would allow us to tap into some of that unused processing power by creating a distributed network computer by linking the computers on a network together; if one computer had a huge task of some sort to complete and other computers on the network had spare processor cycles available, there’d be some sharing going on, and you could get more done. At least that was the idea, but I haven’t heard much about distributed computer grid clusters since the big splash about using a host of Macs to create a monster grid computer. Xgrid sharing lives on, and even has a checkbox to enable it in the Sharing Preference Panel in Mac OS 10.5 (and maybe earlier.) Years ago when it might take a raster image processor (RIP) multiple hours to chew through an eight-page layout I would’ve have loved to put something like this to work, but today with the typical tasks done on the typical desktop computer in a print shop or an office environment, and without some monstrously processor-intensive task that needs to be done, I don’t really see much point in messing with it.

What I would like to see though is some kind of distributed disk sharing; that iMac I set up today starts out with a whopping big 600GB drive; after loading all the software on it there was still an easy 500GB… And that computer is one of three that I set up recently, and one of five of the same configuration. If I were to partition the disks in each of those machines to set aside half of the available space I’d have an easy terabyte and a half of disk space that could be used for other stuff.

What if there was some way of joining the disks on multiple computers over the network to create a disk array of sorts… A local area network RAID array. Think of a RAID array with the network acting as the interface card and some software on a server striping the bits & bytes across the disks. In all my digging through Google and other search engines, I haven’t found anything like what I’m thinking of; either I’m not asking the right questions or it hasn’t been done yet. If not, that’s too bad, because I think there’s a lot of potential there, but I can also understand some of the obstacles to making it work. The biggest issue is probably that the network can be a lot more fragile than the hardware & software that it takes to make a RAID array in a server or external box work. A mirrored drive in a RAID 1 arrangement would probably work best, as the other RAID levels with the data striped across multiple volumes would require a higher level of availability for the disks than might be possible.

But you know, since it doesn’t look like using that disk space for live files will work any time soon, maybe I can still put it to use for backups; set Retrospect up to use that space for backing stuff on the server up to disk, just for extra redundancy… Hmmm… Might have to play with that a bit…