I'm looking at RAID controllers, specifically the (Avago) LSI Logic MegaRAID SAS 9261-8i.  It is a 8-port card, which I would be able to "Connect up to 128 SATA or SAS drives with eight internal 6 Gb/s SATA and SAS ports" but I only see two connectors.  Can someone please explain how the connectors/ports/devices relate? Thanks!
I've doing some researches since few days and I haven't really got an answer to my question.  I am in the process of building a huge file server for the company I work for. We bought a server case  with 24 bays and drives. Now I am stuck at the point where I have to choose the RAID card. I saw a RAID card from LSI that offer 6 internals mini-SAS 8087 ports (6x4) and would work perfectly with my build. However, it's not cheap.  I have been reading about the subject and I found something called SAS Expander. They are cheap.  with 6 mini SAS 8087 for 225$ (instead of 1150$ of the other one).  Now my question, how would I link an SAS Expander with a RAID card ? Do I need to a buy a RAID card with only 1 external 8088 port and link it with the other card ? Could someone clarify this for me because I haven't found any good documentation on it.  Thanks you.
How to set the fully qualified hostname on CentOS 7.0? How do I set the fully qualified hostname on CentOS 7.0?  I have seen a few posts online for example using:  $ sudo hostnamectl set-hostname nodename.domainname   However, running domainname returns nothing:  $ domainname (none)   Also:  $ hostname nodename.domainname   However,  $ hostname -f hostname: Name or service not known $ hostname -d hostname: Name or service not known   Some debug output:  $ cat /etc/hostname nodename.domainname  $ grep ^hosts /etc/nsswitch.conf hosts:      files dns While studying rotational mechanics, I came across a section where it mentioned that angular momentum may not necessarily be parallel to angular velocity. My thoughts were as follows:  Angular momentum ($L$) has the relation $L=I\omega$ where $\omega$ is angular velocity and $I$ is the moment of inertia, so following this relation, it seems they should be in the same direction. Why are they not? Stop all active ajax requests in jQuery How is the minimum of a set of IID random variables distributed? If $X_1, ..., X_n$ are independent identically-distributed random variables, what can be said about the distribution of $\min(X_1, ..., X_n)$ in general? A coin is tossed three times. The probability of zero heads is 1/8 and the probability of zero tails is 1/8. What is the probability that there is at least one head and at least one tail?  So, if P(zero heads)= 1/8 , then that should be the same of p(all tails)?  We would use the complement rule and Multiplication Rule?   P(at least one head) = 1 - P(no heads) = 1 - 1/8= 7/8 P(at least one tail) = 1 - P(no tails) = 1 - 1/8= 7/8  would I multiply the two values? Does $\lim_{n\to\infty}\underset{n}{\underbrace{\cos(\cos(...\cos x))}}$ exist? Possible Duplicate:         Does the following limit exist?  $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\underset{n}{\underbrace{\cos(\cos(...\cos x))}}$$  If yes, find the limit.  If no, please explain why the limit doesn't exist.  I think, the limit exists.  So, I tried to use Squeeze theorem but didn't work. Proving $\,a\mid bc\!\iff\! \frac{a}{(a,b)}\!\mid c\ $ [general Euclid's Lemma] I tried to start by showing that $ \frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)} $ is always an integer, let's call it $d$, because $a$ is always a multiple of $(a,b)$ based on the definition of a g.c.d. I then tried to show that if $a | b$ then $a|bc$ from the theorem that states that $a|b$ implies that $a|bc$ for any integer $c$, but I cant seem to prove that $a | b$ or that $a|bc$ only if $d \mid c$ (where $d = \frac{a}{\gcd(a,b)}$ ). Any help would be much appreciated. Filter subscription email is not being delivered (June 2019 - Feb 2020) I have created a custom filter in  and specified that I would like to get email updates:  However, I never got a confirmation mail nor any notifications based on my filter. I tried the &quot;resent confirmation mail&quot; button on the right hand sidebar:  But again nothing happens. The mail address should be fine  I used it for all kinds of notifications from Stack Exchange. For example the rep recalculation email arrived just fine on this address.  I retyped it several times to make sure there really isn't any typo  I double checked that it did not end up in the spam filter  I don't think it is a problem with my particular email provider, users with other mail providers seem to have the same problem, see     This is possibly related to , but this claims to be &quot;status complete&quot;.   EDIT: Although the &quot;status-completed&quot; tag was added, the problem still persists  EDIT 2: As of Feb 2020, it finally works How to display quick-updating images without large memory allocation? Passing arguments forward to another javascript function On the Goblet of Fire Barty Crouch exactly got Mad-Eye's voice when he transformed into him, but on the Deathly Hallows, they were all able to have their own voices instead of Harry's. Why is the effect of the polyjuice potion inconsistent? $P$ is a prime ideal of $R$ iff $R/P$ is an integral domain. : $P≠R$ Here is the theorem and proof in my textbook.     Thm.  Let $P$ be an ideal of a commutative ring $R$ with identity $1$.  Then $P$ is a prime ideal of $R$ if and only if $R/P$ is an integral domain.   Proof.   Suppose that $P$ is a prime ideal of a commutative ring $R$ with $1$.  Then $P$≠$R$ implies $1+P≠0+P$. Hence $R/P$ is a commutative ring $R$ with identity.  Assume that $(a+P)(b+P)=0+P$.  Then $ab+P=0+P$ and $ab∈P$.  By the definition of a prime ideal P we get $a∈P$ or $b∈P$.  That is, $a+P=0+P$ or $b+P=0+P$.  Thus $R/P$ is an integral domain.   Conversely, if $R/P$ is an integral domain, then $1+P≠0+P$ and $R/P$ is a commutative ring $R$ which has no zero divisors.  Hence $P≠R$.  Assume $ab∈P$.  Then $ab+P=0+P$ and $(a+P)(b+P)=0+P$.  Since $R/P$ is an integral domain, we get $a+P=0+P$ or $b+P=0+P$.  So $a∈P$ or $b∈P$.  Thus $P$ is a prime ideal.    I am having problems understanding proof with "Conversely, if $R/P$ is an integral domain, then $1+P≠0+P$.".  I know that $R/P$ has an identity. (cause it is ID)  But, why doesn't "$P$" have an identity?  Isn't there a case $P=R$?  Please help me understanding. I think $P≠R$ should be with condition of Thm..  Thank you in advance. Here, we suppose that $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ and that $x^n=y^n$, where $n$ is odd. I want to prove that $x=y$.  Maybe we can use that $x^n-y^n=(x-y)(x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}y+...+xy^{n-2}+y^{n-1})$  So, it suffices to show that if $x^n=y^n$ then $x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}y+...+xy^{n-2}+y^{n-1}\neq 0$  Any hint? Maximum power transfer and Thevenin I am trying to find the thevenin resistance value and the Vth for maximum power transfer. I have tried to find Rth by calculating R3 and R2 as parallel resistance and same for R4 and R5 and then adding them with R1 but I am not sure if I have done it the right way. For Vth I have tried using KVL but I think I have calculated wrong current values using current divider rule. I calculated the total current by diving V1 and R1. I hope someone can help. I have attached the picture of the circuit. Specifically, if diary Tom Riddle had succeeded, how would he have strengthened the present day Voldemort?   In , @Pearsonartphoto gives a quote from J.K. Rowling in his answer regarding what would have happened if Tom Riddle had succeeded in fully manifesting from his diary memory form to a full human form.     Q: In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, what would have happened if Ginny had died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?   J.K. Rowling: I can’t answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably.    - FAQ - Wayback Machine   As well, I've read all seven Harry Potter books many, many times and I haven't been able to ferret out any overt details regarding exactly how the present day Voldemort would've been strengthened by co-existing with diary Tom Riddle.  Specifically, how would the reincarnation of 16-year-old Tom Riddle have strengthened the 67-year-old present-day Voldemort at the time of Chamber of Secrets?  &#9733; I would love an answer from canon, any of J.K. Rowling's interviews, or Pottermore, or an answer constructed within the spirit of canon. Best book of topology for beginner? I am a graduate student of math right now but I was not able to get a topology subject in my undergrad... I just would like to know if you guys know the best one.. Inverse of this $3\times 3$ matrix using the Cayley–Hamilton theorem Find the inverse of the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} -1 &amp; 2&amp; 0 \\ 1&amp; 1 &amp;0 \\ 2 &amp; -1&amp; 2 \end{pmatrix}$$ using the Cayley–Hamilton theorem.  Thanks! Second-order non-linear ODE $2tx'-x=lnx'$  I differentiated both sides with respect to x:  $x'+2tx''=\frac {x''}{x'}$  Substituting $p=x'$,  $p+2tp'=\frac{p'}{p}$  But I have no clue what can I do from here on.  EDIT: $t$ is the non-dependent variable. I have a question regarding classification in general. Let $f$ be a classifier, which outputs a set of probabilities given some data D. Normally, one would say: well, if $P(c|D) &gt; 0.5$, we will assign a class 1, otherwise 0 (let this be a binary classification).   My question is, what if I find out, that if I classify the class as 1 also when the probabilities are larger than, for instance 0.2, and the classifier performs better. Is it legitimate to then use this new threshold when doing classification?  I would interpret the necessity for lower classification bound in the context of the data emitting a smaller signal; yet still significant for the classification problem.  I realize this is one way to do it. However, if this is not correct thinking of reducing the threshold, what would be some data transformations, which emphasize individual features in a similar manner, so that the threshold can remain at 0.5? Bearing in mind I am a layman - with no background in physics - please could someone explain what the "big deal" is with quantum entanglement?  I used to think I understood it - that 2 particles, say a light-year apart spatially, could affect each other physically, instantly.  Here I would understand the "big deal".  On further reading I've come to understand (maybe incorrectly) that the spatially separated particles may not affect each other, but in knowing one's properties you can infer the other's.  If that it the case, I don't see what the big deal is... 2 things have some properties set in correlation to each other at the point of entanglement, they are separated, measured, and found to have these properties...?  What am I missing? Is it that the particles properties are in an "un-set" state, and only when measured do they get set?  (i.e. the wave-function collapses).  If this is true - why do we think this instead of the more intuitive thought that the properties were set at an earlier time?