Recent content by PCBONEZ

I have for 'dumb' electronic components. Things like connector housings and pins. I get active components elsewhere because I don't trust Alibaba THAT much. There ARE many legit sellers there but also fraud is rampant. They counterfeit electronics parts (caps, IC chips, cards and so-on) just...

The contaminant inclusions shown in some of the parts in the video appear to be flux left over from acid/rosin core solder. Hence the related corrosion issues. Proper cleaning post soldering would eliminate the problem. Acid Free 'No Clean' flux would do it too. I realize that only helps if you...

Although admittedly not always user friendly, both UL and the FCC maintain publicly accessible databases so consumers can look up the numbers. They also have information on how to spot fake markings and/or what legit markings should look like. Lacking the numbers doesn't by default mean the...

@Owners of these Chinese x79 mobos. Are there any UL numbers or FCC certs claimed on the board/box or in the documentation? UL numbers can ID the actual manufacturer and possibly lead to BIOS updates and so on. FCC certs ensure the boards are not sources of EMI. Thanks. .

Earlier I made some suggestions for the ServeTheHome's RAID MTTDL Calculator. Now I'm reporting a bug. Are you familiar with the title of this thread?

First it makes no sense that an ad-blocker would -only- affect it when the 'other' box is used. Second - I did a fresh install of Firefox with no ad-blocker. - Same exact behavior. Maybe the problem is newer versions of Firefox don't like some of your older HTML. .

Firefox is blocking the page reload to the new numbers when I click "submit" - but only when I use the "other" box. If I 'tell' Firefox to allow the page reload, it will, but it reverts back to the preset value (1.2M) in the process. Once the blocking happens it locks-in and stays. I have to...

Just a suggestion... Might reduce computational load if you weren't doing numbers like 6,889,809,525,022.22 out to 2 decimal places. From a practical standpoint 3 or 4 significant digits should be enough for comparisons - if that kind of rounding is supported in your program. .

I can not get the mentioned "other" box to work: "Enter # for MTBF (base 10)" Been trying to enter 1.0M for MTBF. No matter how I enter it doesn't calculate and what I entered blanks out. Which syntax/style are you using for base 10 in that box? Thanks.

I've been looking at Seagate/WD NAS type drives which all seem to be 1.0M MTBF. WD RE4 (which I have a lot of) are 1.2M MTBF. The RE4 apparent replacements (WD Gold) are listed as between 2.0M and 2.5M MTBF I missed 'other' and the drop-down that allows entering your own number there - so...

Depends on the kind of RAM. Some FBDIMMs use in excess of 20w per module at full load. This would be the only reason I moved on from my beloved dual LGA771 boards. Well, except the one I'm using right now... :D As I showed earlier with Z(x) calc' numbers compared to your calc' numbers the...

As I said earlier I'm just learning this RAID-Z(x) stuff myself and I'm not a programmer. As I understand it the RAID-Z(s) use system RAM/CPU and some processing routines (that RAID-5/6 don't have equivalents to) to detect and correct data errors that RAID-5/6 miss completely. (Even using...

I would think that STH would be benefited by having the only fully complete calculator.

I'm a retired QA inspector. Electronic Control Systems for Nuc plants. Ultimately QA over whole plants and their repair facilities. (Not just the electronics gear.) What you did with a dual socket system I used to do with a TI-30. But not in 15 minutes. (Just sayin' I know what the numbers are...

Clearly you did. Usable capacity number are the same but the reliability numbers are different. Using the same drive set for assumptions (**)... (Assumptions based on 6x 4TB enterprise drives, IIRC.) RAID-6 MTTDL: 8.7 x 10^11 hr ( or ~ 870,000,000,000 hrs ) RAID-Z2 MTTDL: 1.3 x 10^12 hr (~...