Re: Give it time
I have. I depth. SSDs still make no sense outside of Tier 0 and some Tier 1 apps. They make no sense at all below Tier 2. Even at Tier 2, hybrid is the way to go.
6207 posts • joined 31 May 2010
I have. I depth. SSDs still make no sense outside of Tier 0 and some Tier 1 apps. They make no sense at all below Tier 2. Even at Tier 2, hybrid is the way to go.
Better Marx than Rand. And better what Adam Smith actually wrote, in his totality than what Americans think he wrote, by only paying attention to one part of one book. And better proper regulated social democracy than the lot of 'em.
Oh, and there is, at any point in time, a fixed number of jobs available. That may change from moment to moment, but there are not going to be more jobs available than are required to get things done. If you aren't paying locals to do those jobs, you're just shipping money out of the country.
Ultimately, what matters is the net flow of money into the country. And by net flow, I don't mean "squirreled away into the bank accounts of the ultra rich". I consider that functionally out of circulation, and trickle-down-your-pants economics is a fucking farce. The ultra rich don't really reinvest all that much, especially lately. They just camp on the damned money and it is thus functionally out of the economy.
What is the net money available for use by the bottom 95% of the country? Is that increasing year on year, decreasing, or staying more or less the same? Adjust for inflation and divvy up per capita and we can start to have a real conversation about the economy.
Next, we can have a conversation about how globalization depresses wages in first world nations, but how it has led to the spread of laws and regulations that emphatically prohibit the hoi polloi from benefiting from globalization through the legalization of the "grey market". Wages go down, but the price of goods under copyright doesn't. Wages go down but the cost of pharmaceuticals doesn't. So on and so forth.
These are good conversations to have. Ones about the net effect of all this Randian bullshit. That net effect, by the way? Not good.
Assad is responsible for over 95% of deaths in Syria during this war. The rebels about 4%. ISIS about 1%. They are not the threat western media makes them out to be, and they are NOTHING compared to the monster that is Assad.
Sometimes killing people is necessary. You may not like it, but that's the reality of the world.
Take Assad in Syria, for example. Him, you kill. No hesitation. There are plenty of others. People who aren't capable of reason. People who can't talk things out; whose drive for power or sheer sociopathic inhumanity will never let them be talked down.
You may not like it, but I hope you're grown up enough to recognise the truth of it.
"How many of us would work as hard, facing no pressure, as we would facing it?"
What an American work ethic. Goddamn.
Many of us work with hard because we take professional pride in our work. As has been proven time and again, "working hard" and "being well remunerated" have fuck all to do with one another. So whether or not you work hard shouldn't depend on how likely or not you are to be replaced: it should be a point of professional pride. Always do the best you possibly can.
Now, that doesn't mean you don't go looking for a better job every now and again, but it does mean you don't slack off just because you think you can get away with doing so. Or, you know, so grownups behave in most places I've been.
Jean Charles de Menezes had nothing to hide and they fucking murdered him for it.
What about Alan Turing? He shouldn't have had to hide what he did have to hide and that ended pretty damned badly too.
We're not so different today. Are you interested in being next?
Are you kidding? Worstall would never advocate something that actually benefited the people instead of the 1%. He would want anyone who did anything that ever threatened the utter dominance of the 1% melted in public, all while claiming that it was "for the greater good". Then he'd demand deregulation so that the 1% could stimulate the economy by paying us all less all through the magic of "the invisible hand".
Robbing the rich in order to buy shiny shiny thus actually enriching the majority is essentially Worstall's antiparticle.
Bullshit. It's about time globalization started benefiting the people instead of only corporations.
There are no good reasons for charging different rates for something based on where someone resides. Period.
There may be good reasons for not offering services at all based on geographic location. The only two good reasons I can think of for not offering services based on location are:
1) "It is a government service that, by definition, is only available to residents of a given location (as opposed to those services which are available to citizens, and thus should be accessible from anywhere).
2) "Selling this product or service is illegal in the target location". This can include conforming with export laws as well as conforming with local sale laws.
"I want to make more money" is absolutely not a good reason for geo-blocking. If you consider that to be a valid reason, I hope you evaporate with expediency.
Either globalization levels the playing field for consumers as well as producers or we should not have it. Period.
I know next to nothing about the lawsuit. SimpliVity is very purposefully not saying much about it: their lawyers have rightly told them not to and I have not asked.
What I do know is rather a great deal about their storage system. It is not a "hashed key storage system". Or, to be more precise, describing Simplivity's storage as a "hashed key storage system" is a bit like describing a car as "a door handle with some accessories". It is rather more involved that your typical NoSQL setup (which is basically what a hashed key storage system would be).
When I think "hashed key storage system" I think things like what WinFS was supposed to be: essentially, a database, but with a rich index. SimpliVity's underlying storage is to a database as a database including fully modern HA, DR and incremental forever backups are to a standard paper filing cabinet.
I really don't want to get in to attempting to describe the technical bits here in the comments. There exist no pithy buzzwords that actually capture what SimpliVity is doing. There are no simple hand waves to easily facilitate smirks of dismissal. To explain SimpliVity I really need to marry graphics to words. And I'm doing so. It has been my major project for the past week and will be for this next week.
What SimpliVity is doing with storage is honestly quite clever. It's also tricky enough to really get at first. Most people are tempted to dismiss it as something they already know because that makes it simple and it prevents them from having to admit that there might be something that they don't already know.
Storage experts who are motivated to actually learn - and learn in detail - usually need an hour or so to fully grasp what's going on. Once they do there is quite literally an "aha!" moment where you can see (or hear) the "click" of understanding. This is followed by silence...then usually an "oh shit", as you realize that what SimpliVity has in their storage platform is a couple orders of magnitude more awesome than the simple hyperconvergence they're using it for.
And it absolutely, 100% is worth patent protection (assuming SimpliVity's nerds came up with it first). And this is me saying this. I am Andrew Orlowski's antiparticle. I'm usually the guy crapping all over intellectual property overreach.
I had my "aha" moment about a month ago. I knew more about SimpliVity storage than most, but I got my hour with the brain trust and that really let me grok what's what. I then had the honour of being included in a conference call with a number of storage industry luminaries as they went through the same process and each of them had that very same "aha" moment followed by a "wow".
These are the cynical fucks who pend their lives tearing storage companies to shreds. I didn't exactly think anything wowed them anymore.
So, yeah...there's a little bit more to it than "hashed key storage system". In fact, your broad categorization attempt is exactly why I want to take the time to explain it properly.
We're all so bitter and jaded. So full of ourselves and ready to inflate our sense of self worth by stomping on others. We've become a society of people who define ourselves not by what (or whom) we like...but by what (or whom) we hate.
But here is something cool. It's proper nerdy tech. It's the sort of thing that made me like computers, oh so very long ago. Before the help desking and the printers and the cloudy bullshit and Microsoft Licensing ruined everything.
Sitting in that room at VMworld, scribbling diagrams on a paper easel and finally getting what I can only describe - in the olden sense of the word - as a truly legendary hack...all the bullshit just melted away. The past 20 years of my life, all the stress, all the worry, all the every day frustration and pain...it just vanished.
I was a kid again, and I was truly marveling at the possibility of a technology.
I haven't felt that way since I was first shown Mosaic, and I truly understood what the World Wide Web would mean.
Now: maybe it's true that I'm just a naive so-and-so who doesn't know enough about the world. I usually think that getting dozens briefings on virtually every new technology in every field on the planet has rendered me jaded. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I still have rose coloured glasses.
But this particular storage tech is one that made me feel like me again...even if just for a moment. So for that reason alone, it's worth the time to do pretty pictures and putting real effort into doing it justice.
Maybe - just maybe - I'll convince one other person not to cheaply categorize and dismiss SimpliVity's technology, but instead to delve deep and reach the "aha" moment of their own. If I can "pass it along" to just one person, I'll feel like I've done my job. :)
Long winded, I know. I'm avoiding sleeping. Alas, my rant is done and it off to the facepillow for me...
Um....no. I will explain in more detail soonish. Working on the deep dive.
Sorry, my original comment was direct at Sandtitz.
K: Are you American or a Briton by chance? The blatant disregard for privacy strikes me as being something that is fairly common there, and baffling just about everywhere else.
Why do I need Active Directory if I all my apps are tied together with OAuth? AD is a solution to a specific problem, but no longer the only one.
"NetApp continues to be dismissive of the long-term competitive threat of emerging storage vendors"
<Yoda>That is why you fail</Yoda>
Except for the part where the DRBD-based replication is A) a pain in the ASCII to set up and B) not terribly reliable. It's way - way - better than it was, but still nowhere near as reliable as HCI.
Now, if Synology would drop DRBD and switch to LizardFS we could talk. They'd have a reliable scale out storage infrastructure underneath and we could then use the containerized/KVMed DSM on top.
The DSM isn't bad. In fact, I love the DSM. The problem is that as soon as you want HA or the ability to scale beyond one node's worth of storage Synology just isn't good enough.
Maybe in Synology 7 they'll adopt LizardFS. Of course, by then, open sourced HCI solutions like NodeWeaver will have incorporated not only Docker support, but integrated SMB/NFS file support so we won't NEED Synology anymore...
So post your real name, Anonymous Coward. You deserve to go to jail for the crimes committed by those who manufactured your comptroller. Child labour, industrial espionage...all of it! You are sanctioning it explicitly through your purchase of the relevant equipment. By your own logic you are to be held accountable for the crimes of those others, and will be punished according to the most stringent regulations available on the planet for those crimes.
Maybe we should just line you up against a wall and have you shot.
I use lots of technology compatible with IPv6. I just use NAT66 (but not NAPT66) to do 1:1 address mapping to allow me to A) have an internal address space that isn't visible to the public and B) handle readdressing on networks that can't afford the outrageous costs of BGP connectivity. Oh, and I don't care if that breaks $application (not that I have found any it has, yet).
Not accepting the shit shoveled my way by the ivory tower types isn't quite the same as not embracing the future. It's anticipating potential problems and architecting around them.
Hey, isn't that what you lot are supposed to be getting paid for too?
Au contraire: proprietary SSD formats are just the perfect thing to create lock in on the storage medium and keep margins at some ridiculous amount above street value.
And I hope sociopathic Anonymous Cowards like you get cholera and shit yourselves to death.
Snowden was at least a net benefit to humanity, mate. You're not.
An excellent point, Mr. Hand. What does happen when a Google self-driving car meets another Google self-driving car? Do they both come to a halt in a confusion of LIDAR reflections? Please say it isn't so?
Having seen multiple of them driving side by each, they seem perfectly fine. They are able to approach from multiple angles, make the correct decisions about right of way, and proceed through intersections to go about their day.
I think that's been solved aged ago, mate.
FYI: There are lots of cars out there with LIDAR that ship in volume. They also see eachother on a daily basis. They have not freaked out and stopped working thus far. Similarly, Google cars encounter LIDAR-equiped cars from other manufacturers on a regular basis (especially in Mountain View, I assure you!) and they don't have any problems interacting.
The bad news is that a busload of orphans carrying one-eyed puppies is directly behind it.
But since youa re presumably of the "humans are superior" camp (teh camp of the insane, btw,) you wouldn't be following too close and would easily have enough reaction time to stop in response to the car in front of you.
...wouldn't you? I mean, you do follows the laws regarding road saftey...don't you?
If not, why is it the fault of an autonomous car doing the safe thing that you are unable to maintain focus on your one job of driving and drive within the rules?
...or are you trying to put human fallibility and inability to actually pay attention, follow the rules and drive in a safe fashion off onto the robots? A human driver in front of you might do something strange that you don't predict at any moment. As a driver it is your job to be ready for that - for anything really - at any time.
If you can't do that, why the merry fuck are you behind the wheel?
Sounds to me like perhaps you should be replaced.
Maybe by robots.
Humans adapt. Hardware not so much, nor so quickly.
You are hardware. Just of lesser construction.
Fleshbags are failure.
Bullshit fantasy drivel.
Proprietary players will subsidize loss leaders to drive competitors out of the market. Once they have a hold on the juiciest segment of the market they feel they are likely to get, they'll turn the knobs and squeeze. Lock-in will mean that customers can't go anywhere and proprietary components (likely combined with the storage equivalent of HP chipping their ink cartridges) will mean that the costs per GB of proprietary flash will be astronomical compared to standardized flash.
Which is the exactly same shit that those very same storage vendors pulled with spinning disks. Which lead to the current storage wars and the explosion of startups offering new ways to do storage and eating into the margins (and market share) of the spinning-rust titans.
Of course, because the dominant players have already been through this before, they will be a lot more proactive about killing off potential competitors than they were in the past. (This is already beginning to be seen.) The margins on disk-based arrays have plummeted, but there is no way that the big fat storage daddies are going to let this happen to flash.
That blinkered, Americanized - almost Randian - view of economics which relies on faith and carefully ignoring abuse of market dominance is a lie. As big a lie as "trickle down economics", which is another in the pack of scurrilous economics bullshit fed to the mentally incompetent to keep them pliant.
No. Proprietary flash modules give proven market dominance abusers a means to abuse their dominant position in the market. And the instant that they've managed to leverage their dominant position in the disk array market to achieve a dominant position in the flash array market, they'll start to squeeze.
That's the Oracle school of economics, and it's fucked right the hell up. It's also the only playbook that tech megacorporations work from.
Just think about how much over market price they can now charge for storage! It'll make the disk array days looks tame.
After "plays for sure", it seems to me everyone should have seen this - and all the future server shutdowns - coming. The cloud is not forever. It's just someone else's computer. A computer they will eventually turn off.
Don't eat the chicken. Seriously. Do not eat the chicken.
Talk to @exchangegoddess about using these things. You put them into play and the next time you actually have to look at the UI it's like 6 months later, and then only because you want to fine tune some QoS tweak. Pretty much an "out of sight, out of mind" product.
Not on purpose, but there was a large electrical storm that knocked out power. It seemed to handle things okay. No bizarre corruption that I could detect.
What they officially support and what works are two totally different things. Official support is pretty limited and restricted to VM workloads only. What actually works is more or less what you'd expect from a compliant NFS datastore.
That said, you should always stick with what's officially supported. If only for CYA in case of emergency.
I did. It didn't know what the VMs were inside it's UI, but otherwise allowed me to do what I need. It shouldn't be hard to add the more complete capability, but for the moment, it just treats KVM VMs the same as it does, for example, an .ISO file loaded up via NFS.
NFS is NFS is NFS, really. Everything else is the unit going "oh, hey, I know what that file is, let's present it in a friendly way".
There are more Cumulus switch vendors than Quanta and Dell. I have a Supermicro Cumulus switch on my bench, for example. I wonder if this will integrate with those units?
I fight for what's right, not what's convenient.
That would be the "cloud first" raining down upon you, mate.
Cloud first, mobile first.
Customers, partners, developers and staff last.
Where would you like your privacy renditioned to today?
Spoken like someone who has never had to actually use the soul-draining horror that is System Center. System Center anything really. It's all crap. Some more crap than others, but goddamn is it a bucket of terrible crap.
Microsoft: forget the war on drugs, there's the war on usability to fight!
scalability, HA, failover, 3rd-party plug-in integration
Every major hypervisor has these. has had these for ages.
The things VMware has that other hypervisors don't (like FT, wan vMotion, etc) are still pretty niche. There are reasons why VMware is still dominant. Basic functionality isn't one of them.
Coho's offering is really quite interesting. A little bit niche, but if your needs fall into that niche I they seem to do a fine job there.
But who will stand against the Borg then?
Are you kidding me? I'm (mostly) a transhumanist. Cut my brain out and implant it in a 40 foot tall spider robot body, please and thank you. Fuck this weak and pathetic flesh bag. It's stupid and I hate it.
I get the impression that you feel your species is essentially lacking and ought be curtailed.
No...I think that we're a superpredator that has largely overwhelmed the ecological niche it evolved to fill. We've compensated with technology for a while, but now we're at the point where that technology is making us largely redundant. That's opening us up for a self-imposed Matthusean catastrophe wherein socially and culturally we have no room for the "extra" people who are no longer needed to provide cheap labour for the rich and powerful.
I am not arguing ethics about this. I am arguing pragmatism. Those in power aren't going to suddenly find a use for the milled masses. They aren't going to invest in training those milled masses, and the cost of training is such that you need to be gainfully employed just to obtain it today anyways.
The skills floor is skyrocketing and the number of skilled workers required dropping. Meanwhile, we just can't stop having fucking babies. We're overpopulating. Not because of what we theoretically could sustain, but because of what we pragmatically and realistically will choose to sustain, based on 10,000 years of recorded human history.
Maybe we are guilty of a crime? Do we have Original Sin upon our heads?
No...that's absurd. That's for religious fuzzy wuzzies or really extreme eco-freaks. That said, we are functionally immune to anything excepting gross evolutionary pressures. if you're born with a handful of really awful conditions you're probably not going to reproduce. Anyone else, however, can. You don't even need to find a long-term mate these days. It can be done as a straight up financial transaction, if you choose.
The end result is that a bunch of fairly bad genes are being passed on. Me, for example. I have a bit of genetic fuckery that means I cannot feel thirst. Instead, I feel an overwhelming (and sometimes unstoppable) craving for carbohydrates. Carbs tend to make me dehydrated, which causes a nasty cycle.
I can, for example, be in the middle of making pasta, telling myself (out loud or in my head) over and over "I shouldn't make pasta, I don't need pasta, I'm fat enough, thanks, I need water, water will solve this" and be entirely unable to use my conscious mind to override my body's actions.
I am also somnambulent. Video exists of me, dead asleep, getting up and just eating bread. Because my body can't tell it needs water.
That's not okay. That's a really bad bit of genetics. There are some others, but you know what, I'm doing humanity a favour by not passing that shit on.
Now, I know, some genetics that appear to be negative can convey benefits. For example, immunity to a plague we haven't encountered yet. That said, our technology is marching on such that the dubious potential genetic benefits of some generally pretty awful genetic traits are less and less relevant.
While I don't look at the "ethics" of how we are inevitably going to treat our "surplus" poor and undereducated, I do think that there is some ethics to examining the genetic inheritance that we might personally pass on to the next generation.
"The people" have fuck all power in the real world to affect how the rich and powerful treat the "surplus" population. Whatever your ethical views (and frankly, I'm not Randian at all in my own personal ethics,) moralizing about how we will treat those people is pointless. They will suffer by the billions, at best eeking out marginal lives living on handouts.
Yes, I know, the optimistic (and, IMNSHO, crazy) believe in the fairy tale that robots and technological advancements will be a "tide that lifts all boats". I do not. There isn't a lot of evidence for that. As our ability to produce increases so does the concentration of wealth.
We don't look set to actually do anything about inequality beyond providing the means for the poorest to eek out those marginal, hand-out lives, and we are decreasing the opportunity for individual self advancement in our societies.
So regardless of one's ethical or moral beliefs I think the pragmatic approach to dealing with human nature is to stop and ultimately reverse the total human population growth. I am not advocating the extinction of humanity, but its reduction over time to levels that allow human nature to allow everyone to leave reasonably comfortably. This has nothing to do with what's possible. it has everything to do with what is.
From an ethical standpoint I think an additional reason to reduce our population is simply that some of what we are - our genetics - needs to end. Normally evolution would take care of this for us, but we've largely cut that out of the equation. If humanity is going to use artificial means to bypass evolution we need to use artificial means to make rational choices about genetic propagation.
That isn't a call for eugenics. It's a call for personal responsibility regarding genetic propagation. We have the technology to choose whether or not we reproduce. Ethically, morally, I feel that means we have a duty to educate ourselves about the consequences of reproduction and make rational choices about whether or not we should reproduce.
Just because our ancestors uses baby spam to overwhelm the planet doesn't mean we should. Humans need to be managed sustainably. Just like any other animal species on the planet.
We just happen to be the only species capable of doing that management consciously. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with doing so. In fact, in my opinion, doing so is our duty as sentient beings.
I have a stadium's worth of ancestors, every one of which did not have your attitude
A pity. Look at the results.
And? So what? Human nature means that even if we produce enough food for 10 Billion people we don't and won't redistribute it to those who need it.
Besides, life is about more than mere survival. Being kept alive with no purpose, no hope, no chance of ever being more than another mouth to feed is not being alive. There's an essential piece of humanity to being needed, being wanted. That's something that our radically surplus population are having an increasingly hard time with today; in our fully automated future there is even less room for them.
What's the point of yet more children or grandchildren? Especially from poor regions? It's somehow a good thing to bring yet more people into the world that we can't feed and who won't have jobs because everyone has been replaced by a shell script or a robot?
If the only hope for that child is to be labour that's just slightly less expensive than that provided by a robot you've consigned that person to a miserable existence. Better to have fewer offspring who can be properly cared for. Or none at all. What makes your genes worth passing on, hmm?
(For the record, I've opted out of procreation in part because my genes are terrible but mostly because there are too damned meany people already.)
Maybe they're busy getting their marketing department ready for the big VMworld push? It's about that time of year.
The ability to have an answer for every need doesn't mean it all has to be sold as one go. It means that they have to have an answer for everything and the ability to sell it all at once, if that's what the customer wants.
Customers shouldn't have to bring in 3 or more vendors to solve all the various pieces of the puzzle for a given solution. Especially a solution like VDI which is almost always deployed in isolation as its own product.
If you only want to buy one part of the solution, you should have that ability. But the sales guy should be able to sell you everything you might possibly need to make any aspect of that solution go, and the sales engineer should be an experienced expert able to answer in detail why you might need or want any given component. Ideally they should also be good enough to architect you a solution based on your expressed needs.
If you are such an expert that you can personally mix and match without needing pre-sales support, congratulations! You're among a select few! But the vast majority of sysadmins don't even know what application virtualization is, let alone user experience management. To say noting of being able to actually discuss the issues related to the implementation of either!
Tech is so big. So mind boggling, overwhelming big. No one person can be an expert in anything but a small fraction of it. So yeah: vendors that can sell as pieces or as stacks are required. To fill the gaps in our knowledge with their solutions.
That's what we ****ing pay them for, after all.
...you want me to fuilty guilty and/or ashamed that you are upset because I told you the truth. And you're calling me the prick?
Dude: narcissistic personality disorder. I think you has it.
I tell ya what, wow.
Spoken like a true Tory. Clinging to the fantasy of the continued relevance of socially conservative ideals, are you? Well, when you move on from the past, drop me a post card.
The NDP benefited because they aren't cowards whoa re afraid of Harper saying mean things about them and willing to betray the Canadian people in order to get a percentage point or two in the polls.
Trudeau, however, is a coward and a traitor. At least Harper is openly against the Canadian people. Trudeau tries to hide his duplicity. Harper's a monster, but I actually have less respect for Harper than I do Trudeau. Never thought I'd see that day. But Trudeau just keeps finding a way to throw the Canadian people under the bus and demand we worship him for it.
How about no.
Trevor is way over inflating how much the average Canadian cares about the election and the issues surrounding it
The only Canadians who matter are those who turn up to vote. They are generally the ones discussing the politics. As for the rest, quite literally, who cares? They are essentially "unpeople" as far as determining the fate of our nation is concerned. And they're unpeople by choice.
Sadly, the Libertarian Party also seem to be strongly socially conservative. But hey, if you guys want to - and can - siphon off some of Harper's support then by all means, please do!
The Liberals are splitting the right and the left. Lots of conservatives want nothing to do with Harper. It's pretty much the only reason they're still in the race at all, given how much of the Liberal base has gone over to the NDP.