"NetApp continues to be dismissive of the long-term competitive threat of emerging storage vendors"
<Yoda>That is why you fail</Yoda>
6647 posts • joined 31 May 2010
"NetApp continues to be dismissive of the long-term competitive threat of emerging storage vendors"
<Yoda>That is why you fail</Yoda>
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.
Um....no. I will explain in more detail soonish. Working on the deep dive.
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.
We're really going to have to agree to disagree here, mate. Having used both products, I'm confident LWL is superior to Immidio. It's a little rough around the edges, but the latest releases absolutely have been increasing in quality, and they provide a broader array of capabilities than Immidio.
Now, nothing is absolute. There are things to like about Immidio that LWL could learn from. overall though, I stick by what I wrote: LWL was the better choice, and VMware flubbed it.
You are, of course, welcome to your own view. The ability to mix and match solutions to meet one's needs is what makes IT so powerful.
Deeply sorry the truth offends you. Actually...no I'm not.
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.
That's what the Conservative party of Alberta said.
Right before we turfed them.
The Global Corporate Congress would like a word with you, citizen...
NDP are Canada's left-wing party. That said, they've moved more towards the center (by Canadian standards) as they started to have a real shot at the crown. They are not as populist as the Pirate or Green parties, but they do stand more for the people than the corporations.
The NDP got elected in Alberta (which has had 43 consecutive years of Conservative government!) on a mandate of moving from flat taxes to progressive taxation, increasing oil royalties, increasing corporate taxes on large organizations, rooting out government corruption and cronyism, balancing the budget (which should be possible in Alberta, of all places!) and spending rationally on infrastructure instead of vanity projects.
The NDP federally are running a very similar campaign, though there are some important differences. For example, federally, we already have progressive taxation, and the federal government doesn't control resource royalties.
It's worth noting that it really boils down to your take on "privacy before profits."
As I see it, lockdown events are acceptable life lessons. Data exfiltration events are not. If you properly invest in mitigation, lockdown events should be relatively rare. If you don't invest in automated incident response data exfiltration is inevitable.
Yes, there are life-critical systems in the world. These should be designed so that data exflitration is impossible because they simply don't have access to compromisable data. They should also have redundancies such that if a compromise is detected services are flipped over to a backup system designed by a completely separate provider so that the same vulnerabilities cannot be exploited.
In every other scenario, a lockdown event is absolutely preferable to a data exfiltration event. At least, as long as you believe in the principle of privacy before profits.
If you don't, then none of this really means anything and you're entirely likely to accept a perpetually compromised datacenter. You'll treat data exfiltration events that become generally known as life lessons and otherwise not care.
If the previous sentence describes you or your employ you are part of the problem and I really do hope you aren't in business all that long. In fact, I hope that legislation is enacted in your jurisdiction that drives you out of business for having that attitude.
A service lockdown is an acceptable life lesson. Data exfiltration is not. That's really all there is to it.
If the attacker is able to compromise your datacenter enough to trigger an isolation event, isn't that exactly the sort of reason you should be locking things down? Better that you take the services offline than that you allow the compromise to spread or that you allow personally identifiable information to be extracted from the DC.
Humans are slow. Too slow.
By all means, have the decisions of the automated software reviewed by a human after they have taken effect, but do not sit around and wait for some human to wake up, have a shower, have some coffee, get to work, shoot the shit, look at the problem and make a decision. Even if you have a 24/7 staffed security NOC, humans are still too slow. Security compromises can spread faster than humans can react, and the number of malicious actors working to increase the speed of compromise spread is far - far - greater than the number of analysts. Or their reaction times.
If you want to put a hold on notifying police or customers, maybe that's a reasonable business decision. But automated isolation of compromised systems and services needs to be automatic. Gathering forensic information needs to be automatic. getting information wrapped up into a bundle so that if the analyst pulls the trigger for sending to the cops it is all ready to go needs to be automatic.
Humans are just too damned slow. The only time they really should be involved here is when making decisions about hot to interface with other humans, and in doing post-event analysis to ensure that the automatics didn't isolate a system/service as a false positive.
But you'll never convince me that we should simply wait around for a human being to decide if a compromise if valid before locking down threats in our datacenters. The threat landscape has just evolved beyond what humans can handle, even in 24/7 real time.
Having talked to many of the startups (stealth and non), I'd say they know a hell of a lto more than the basics. But that's personal opinion from having talked to them. I recommend bringing yoru own experts to talk to the startup of your choice.
The "Service Pack" being all the privacy stealing crap, forced updates that Microsoft won't explain and a newfound complete lack of reason to trust Microsoft with your personal or professional data?
That's a hell of a Service Pack, mate.