Give Your Best Anyway

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centred. Forgive them anyway! If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway! If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway! If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you. Be honest and frank anyway! What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight. Build anyway! If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous. Be happy anyway! The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow. Do good anyway! Give the best you have, and it may never be enough. Give the world the best you have anyway! You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and your God. It was never between you and them anyway.

Mother Theresa

olympian anthony adam lyrics

mazha pozhiyana malanirayude nerukayil oru kootil
manasu niraye viriyumariya kanavukalude paatil
mazha pozhiyana malanirayude nerukayil oru kootil
manasu niraye viriyumariya kanavukalude paatil

minnara kunjungal koothadum neram 
mattarum kaanathe , minnalayi vannu
minnara kunjungal koothadum neram 
mattarum kaanathe , minnalayi vannu

chella kinakkal kudanjerinjal , 
minnaminungikal melle vidhumbille...

kokki kurukiyum , kukukuku kookiyum...

alanurayum oraruviyiloru cherumani mara nizhalil
veyil viricha kasavu thunnumariya chithra shalabham.
alanurayum oraruviyiloru cherumani mara nizhalil
veyil viricha kasavu thunnumariya chithra shalabham.

maamunnaan thedumbol odi panjethum,
vaavavo paadumbol chanjurangum.
maamunnaan thedumbol odi panjethum,
vaavavo  paadumbol chanjurangum.

maarodu cherthonnu konjichude , 
ellarum ninnude ullasathellalle....

Be Inspired

Title :Chris Cornell - You Know My Name

Title :Chris Cornell - You Know My Name
This lyrics is from www.lyrics007.com

If you take a life 
 Do you know what you'll give? 
 Odds are you won't like What it Is. 

 When the storm arrives 
 Would you be seen with me? 
 By the merciless eyes I've deceived 

 I've seen angels fall from blinding heights 
 But you yourself are nothing so divine 
 Just next in line 

 Arm yourself because no one else here will save you 
 The odds will betray you 
 And I will replace you 
 You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you 
 It longs to kill you 
 Are you willing to die? 
 The coldest blood runs through my veins 
 You know my name 

 If you come inside 
 Things will not be the same 
 When you return to my eyes 

 And if you think you've won 
 You never saw me change 
 The game that we have been playing 

 I've seen diamonds cut through harder men 
 Then you yourself but if you must pretend 
 You may meet your end 


 Arm yourself because no one else here will save you 
 The odds will betray you 
 And I will replace you 
 You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you 
 It longs to kill you 
 Are you willing to die? 
 The coldest blood runs through my veins 

 Try to hide your hand 
 Forget how to feel (forget how to feel) 
 Life is gone 
 With just a spin of the wheel (spin of the wheel) 


 Arm yourself because no one else here will save you 
 The odds will betray you 
 And I will replace you 
 You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you 
 It longs to kill you 
 Are you willing to die? 
 The coldest blood runs through my veins 
 You know my name (You Know My Name)


 You Know My Name (You Know My Name)
 You Know My Name 
 You Know My Name
 You Know My Name 

Reset MYSQL/PHPMYADMIN Password in Linux

1) Stop mysql:

Quote:

$ /etc/init.d/mysql stop

2) Make sure that all of the MySQL processes are actually stopped or killed. You can check for running MySQL processes with this command:

Quote:

$ ps waux

3) If any MySQL processes are still running, they will look similar to the following:

Quote:

2102 32523 ... /bin/sh /usr/local/mysql/bin/safe_mysqld ... 2102 32557 ... /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir= ...

You can kill the processes with the kill command(Note: The second column is the Process ID or PID):

Quote:

kill -9 32523

4) Restart mysql with --skip-grant-tables:

Quote:

$ /usr/bin/mysqld_safe --skip-grant-tables

5) Open a new seesion, leave the other open as well, in the new session:

Quote:

$ /usr/bin/mysql

6) This should get you in, now:

Quote:

use mysql;

7) Once you are using the mysql database, run the following:

Quote:

UPDATE user SET Password=PASSWORD('YOUR_PASSWORD_HERE') WHERE Host='localhost' AND User='root';

now quit out with quit; and then restart mysql:

Quote:

$ /etc/init.d/mysql restart

Thats it, you should now be logged in.

AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor

AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor
Let the upgrades begin
by Scott Wasson — 2:26 AM on August 1, 2005 for THE TECH REPORT

WHEN WE FIRST reviewed the Athlon 64 X2 processor a few months back, we said that it was an outstanding CPU, but we wished out loud for AMD to start selling a 2GHz version of the X2 at a lower price. After all, we argued, Intel's Pentium D 820 is a killer deal at just under $250, while the least expensive Athlon 64 X2 costs over twice that. Sure, the X2's performance might well justify the price premium, but we'll take more for our money when we can get it.

Today, our wish is fulfilled in the form of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, a dual-core processor running at 2GHz with 512K of L2 cache per core. AMD has priced this baby at $354—significantly less than any of its other dual-core products. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in computer engineering to figure out that the X2 3800+ ought to offer a very potent combo of price and performance.

As is our custom, we compared the X2 3800+ against over a dozen single- and dual-core competitors to see just how it fits into the big picture. Then we overclocked the living daylights out of the thing, and everything went soft and fuzzy. Our heads are still spinning. Keep reading to see why.

Code name: Manchester
Our first exposure to the Athlon 64 X2 came in the form of the 4800+ model. That chip is code-named "Toledo," and it packs 1MB of L2 cache per processor core, as do the dual-core Opterons. Toledo-core chips sport a transistor count of about 230 million, all crammed into a die size of 199 mm².

AMD also makes several models of Athlon 64 X2 that have only 512K of L2 cache. In the past, CPUs with smaller caches have sometimes been based on the exact same chip as the ones with more cache, but they'd have half of the L2 cache disabled for one reason or another. That's not the case with the X2 3800+. AMD says this "Manchester"-core part has about 154 million transistors and a die size of 147 mm², so it's clearly a different chip. AMD rates the max thermal power needed to cool the X2 3800+ at 89W—well below the 110W rating of the 4800+—and they've revised down the max thermal power of the X2 4200+ to 89W, as well. The Manchester core is obviously a smaller, cooler, and cheaper-to-manufacture chip than Toledo.

The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Cosmetically, though, you'd never know it, because the X2 3800+ looks like pretty much any other Socket 939 processor. The X2 3800+ is intended to work with AMD's existing Socket 939 infrastructure, and it may well be an upgrade option for current owners of Athlon 64 systems. You'll want to check with your motherboard maker to see whether or not your board will support an X2 before making the leap, though. Some boards need only a BIOS update, but we're finding out that some others just can't handle X2 processors. Most newer motherboards should be fine.

Before we dive into the benchmark numbers, let's have a quick look at where the X2 3800+ fits into the bigger picture. With its introduction, the Athlon 64 X2 family now looks like so:

CPU	Clock speed	L2 cache size	Price
Athlon 64 X2 3800+	2.0GHz	512KB	$354
Athlon 64 X2 4200+	2.2GHz	512KB	$482
Athlon 64 X2 4400+	2.2GHz	1024KB	$537
Athlon 64 X2 4600+	2.4GHz	512KB	$704
Athlon 64 X2 4800+	2.4GHz	1024KB	$902

At $354, the X2 3800+ isn't exactly cheap, but it does extend the X2 line into more affordable territory. You've probably noticed the apparent hole in the X2 models at 4000+. Logic would dictate that the X2 4000+ would run at 2GHz and have 1MB of L2 cache. So where is it? I asked AMD this very question, and they told me that they won't comment on unannounced products—and besides there aren't any plans for an X2 4000+ right now.

I'm not too broken up about that, because I'm not convinced the additional L2 cache is worth paying more money to get. We'll address that issue in more detail when we look at the benchmark results.

Now for something really confusing. How does the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ stack up against the competition? Figuring out such things has become horribly puzzling as Model Number Mania has taken hold of the CPU market. Here's my attempt at lining up the various AMD and Intel CPU models according to rough price parity:

CPU	Price	CPU	Price	CPU	Price	CPU	Price	CPU	Price
Pentium 4 541	$218	Pentium 4 630	$224			Athlon 64 3200+	$194
Pentium 4 551	$278	Pentium 4 640	$237	Pentium D 820	$241	Athlon 64 3500+	$223
				Pentium D 830	$316	Athlon 64 3800+	$329	Athlon 64 X2 3800+	$354
Pentium 4 561	$417	Pentium 4 650	$401			Athlon 64 4000+	$375
								Athlon 64 X2 4200+	$482
				Pentium D 840	$530			Athlon 64 X2 4400+	$537
Pentium 4 571	$637	Pentium 4 660	$605					Athlon 64 X2 4600+	$704
		Pentium 4 670	$851			Athlon 64 FX-55	$827
		Pentium 4 XE 3.73GHz	$999	Pentium XE 840	$999	Athlon 64 FX-57	$1031	Athlon 64 X2 4800+	$902

From this handy table, we learn that the X2 3800+'s dual-core competition from Intel is probably the Pentium D 830. You can have a single-core Pentium 4 551 for about 75 bucks less than the price of the X2 3800+, or you could pick up AMD's single-core Athlon 64 3800+ in the same basic price range as the "equivalent" X2. The Athlon 64 3800+ runs at 2.4GHz and has a 512K L2 cache, so you lose 400MHz and pick up a whole second CPU core by going for the X2 3800+ instead. I'd say that's an easy tradeoff to make, but the benchmark results will tell us more about the shape of that choice.

AMD's dual-core Opteron processors

AMD's dual-core Opteron processors
Because four is better than two
by Scott Wasson — 5:16 AM on April 21, 2005 for THE TECH REPORT

MICROPROCESSORS ARE GETTING too hot, requiring too much power, and not delivering enough additional performance for it. That's the basic problem. The engine that's driven the microcomputer's incredible rise in capability over the past 30 years, Moore's Law, isn't quite out of steam yet, but some of its offshoots are on the ropes. CPU designers have nearly exhausted their collective bag of tricks to get more performance out of additional transistors on a chip by increasing parallelism at the instruction level. Speculative execution and deep pipelining are by now very standard features, and CPU designs are getting increasingly complex and hard to manage. When Gordon Moore's goose lays a golden egg and the number of transistors possible on a chip doubles, as it is supposed to do every 18 months, taking advantage of the windfall has proven increasingly difficult.

Cranking up clock speeds hasn't helped much, either, because of transistor leakage problems. Chips are sucking up large amounts of power and expending much of it as heat, and the problem grows more acute as clock speeds ramp up. The most widely noted example of these problems, by far, has been at the company Moore co-founded. The power, heat, and speed problems of the "Prescott" core inside of recent Pentium 4 processors prompted Intel into an impressive and very public change of direction over the course of the past year. The company has sworn off the quest for 4GHz, shied away from clock speed as a measure of performance, and utterly rewritten its CPU roadmap.

AMD has not been entirely immune to these problems, but it has sidestepped their worst effects by keeping clock speeds down. The original Opteron processor debuted two years ago today at speeds up to 2GHz. Two years later, the same processors are available at 2.6GHz—only a 600MHz increase, not much in the grand scheme.

Fortunately, both AMD and Intel seem to have settled on an answer that should allow them to take advantage of ballooning transistor counts to gain additional performance: thread-level parallelism. By dialing back clock speeds and putting multiple CPU cores on a chip, the theory goes, processor performance can rise as transistor counts do. This sort of parallelism will, of course, be familiar to those who know a thing or two about Opteron processors, which have commonly been employed in pairs as part of server or workstation systems.

In fact, AMD says that the Opteron was designed from the outset with dual-core implementations in mind. The folks there are also quick to remind anyone who will listen that AMD was first to tape out an x86-compatible dual-core design and first to demonstrate such a beast in public. Today, they aim to be the first manufacturer to deliver dual-core x86 processors for workstations and servers, just days after Intel officially announced its first dual-core desktop processors.

We've had a pair of dual-core Opteron processors on the test bench for some time now, and we're pleased to report some rather impressive results. AMD's dual-core design is something more than just a pair of CPUs glued together on a single piece of silicon, and this design choice yields a performance dividend. Keep reading to see how the new Opteron 275 stacks up against its Opteron predecessors and against Intel's latest "Nocona" Xeons. We also have a head-to-head battle of single-socket, dual-core workstation processors: the Opteron 175 versus the Pentium Extreme Edition 840.

The processors
On looks alone, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference between dual-core Opterons and their single-core counterparts.

They're cosmetically identical, save for the slightly revamped model numbering scheme. The three-tiered processor series convention remains intact. 100 series processors are for single-socket systems, the 200 series for dual, and the 800 series is intended for 4-socket systems or better. However, instead of incrementing the tail end of the model number by two as clock speeds ramp up, as the Opterons 246, 248, and 250 did, the dual-core models will come in increments of five. The first dual-core Opterons will arrive at clock speeds of 1.8, 2.0, and 2.2GHz as models x65, x70, and x75, respectively.

Prices will vary according to whether the chips are part of the 100, 200, or 800 series and according to clock speeds, but the general plan for pricing is fairly straightforward: it's almost as if AMD were introducing three new top-end speed grades at once. However, there is some overlap. For instance, the Opteron 252 is priced at $851, and the Opteron 265 will be priced the same. Consumers can choose whether they wish to purchase a dual-core processor at 1.8GHz or a single core at 2.6GHz for the same amount. The higher models will carry a premium, but AMD plans to bring the prices of dual-core Opterons down over time into the territory of the current single-core models.

The even better news for current owners of Opteron systems is that the dual-core Opterons will be pin-compatible with existing Socket 940 systems, capable of acting as drop-in replacements for current single-core models. The only requirement is that the motherboard must be able to support newer 90nm chips like the Opteron 252. If the board can do that, it should be able to handle the dual-core chips after a BIOS update, AMD claims. (Check with your motherboard maker to be sure.)

In order to pull off this impressive feat of backward compatibility, AMD had to make its dual-core parts fit into the same basic power and heat envelopes as its single-core processors. To do so, the company tweaked its fabrication process, using lower-leakage transistors that switch somewhat slower but waste less power, among other things. As a result, the Opteron 275 tops out at 2.2GHz, but it consumes no more power than the Opteron 252 at 2.6GHz.

This is one of the minor miracles of choosing thread-level parallelism over higher clock speeds. When we asked AMD CTO Fred Weber about how they managed to keep power and heat so low, he was coy about which specific optimizations AMD employed, but he offered some examples. When you're not optimizing for the absolute best linear performance, he noted, many things are possible, including everything from changing the oxide thickness and transistor voltages to resizing buffers and more extensive clock gating.

To further manage heat and power, dual-core Opterons will support AMD's PowerNow feature (also known as Cool'n'Quiet in the desktop world) that scales clock speeds and CPU voltages down at times of low CPU loads. This feature will function on a whole-chip basis; the CPU cores will not scale their clock speeds up and down independently.

As for the chip itself, the dual-core Opteron will be manufactured on AMD's 90nm process with silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology. The chips will include all of the latest enhancements AMD has made to the K8 core, including SSE3 support and an improved memory controller with broader compatibility, improved memory loading, and more efficient memory mapping.

A dual-core Opteron chip packs in about 233 million transistors, and its die size is a very healthy 199 mm². The Intel Prescott/Nocona on which the Xeon is based is 112 mm² with roughly 125 million transistors. (The newer version with 2MB of L2 cache has 133 million transistors.) So the dual-core Opteron is large, but it's also a very close match for Intel's "Smithfield" dual core, which weighs in at roughly 230 million transistors and 206 mm², although estimates and methods of counting transistors can vary.