When will MS learn to use a decent server OS and not a scaled up single user, single microprocessor OS.
Last time Microsoft's Azure cloud went down, it was a sub-component that flaked out globally, and the time before that it was a certificate problem – now the service is inaccessible again, along with its status page. And the wobble has taken down the Xbox.com website on the Xbox One worldwide launch day. Other services having …
When will MS learn to use a decent server OS and not a scaled up single user, single microprocessor OS.
Were you being intentionally ironic?
(NT has always been a multi-user multi-threaded OS since day 1, unlike, say, Linux which had such things bolted on later in life).
If only el reg had some sort of icon that could indicate whether a postshould be taken literally. :)
Around the same time as obvious trolls like you learn anything about modern Windows, maybe?
I highly doubt Linux had multiuser support bolted on in any meaningful sense of 'later'. It's a Unix.
"NT has always been a multi-user multi-threaded OS since day 1, unlike, say, Linux which had such things bolted on later in life)."
Err, what? Linux was multi user and multi process from day 1. Threads came along later but then when you have multi process multi threading is a nice to have rather than an essential. Remind me - can Windows fork() processes yet? No, didn't think so.
As for NT multi user - sure , so long as you don't want more than 1 user logged on at the same time it was "multi" user. ie - fucking useless.
Not entirely sure why you would want to "fork" a process under NT. Yes you can execute out to one, (with all the overhead that uses), but generally a thread or two inside the same process will suffice.
But but but but...NT is a MICROkernel.
Have they trotted out that old nugget yet?
I still fondly remember the old Unix World article on NT where Davey Cutler proudly announced he was going to "kill UNIX." Didn't work then, not working now. But I hear he's doing GREAT things running the Xbone division!
(Because that's what the X-box developers needed, a bloody drill sergeant.)
"Not entirely sure why you would want to "fork" a process under NT. Yes you can execute out to one, (with all the overhead that uses), but generally a thread or two inside the same process will suffice."
If you don't understand the pros and cons of mult process vs multi threaded programming then I suggest you go and read up about it. And executing out to one - ie starting up a brand new process from scratch - is NOT the same as doing a fork(). But then if you had a clue you'd have known that.
Yep, a thread or two inside the same process so they can gleefully trample each other to death, neatly sidestepping the advantages delivered by multiple address spaces.
Multiple threads have a place; IBM had them in their mainframe OS at least as far back as MVS (1974 or earlier) and used them extensively in products like CICS and DB2. Separate address spaces provide protection from other processes and, for many applicatons, a far simpler, if less flexible, programming environment. Both techniques are useful, each in its place.
>When will MS learn to use a decent server OS and not a scaled up single user, single microprocessor OS.
Yeah, I always get blank stares from Windows users when I explain that Unix cut its teeth on university servers where everyone was trying to hack into everyone else's accounts.
(disclaimer: speaking, perhaps naively, as a dev, not a sysadmin)
However, I don't get the sense that Windows Server itself is the issue with all these Azure failures. The underlying OS may or may not be able to support "the cloud".
Rather, Microsoft as a cloud vendor, not an OS vendor, just does not seem to have the right mindset to _manage_ a cloud. They always seem to be stumbling into single-point-of-failure management component snafus.
Amazon has had a few of those in the last few years, but MS seems to just have more of these failures and be less good at learning from them.
i.e. MS would probably still screw up Azure if it was riding on top of Linux rather than Windows ;-)
@W.O.Frobozz - I think you'll find that while NT didn't kill UNIX, it certainly broke the stangle-hold of Big Iron UNIX vendors on the datacentre. There will always be a place for the older technologies, just in the same way that Big Iron UNIX didn't kill the mainframe, NT won't kill UNIX and Linux won't kill Windows NT, they'll all exist in a heterogeneous environment with each performing to its own strengths.
No, Steve, come back here. Come, COME BACK, dammit. Plug that back in. Yes, you, I saw you.
Plug that back in and then give me that data centre access card. Thank you. You can go now.
Email crapped out too?
Yep... Hotmail has died.
Who would notice that? Spammers?
Is Hotmail really down? Our users can't send to hotmail with the error:
[hotmail.com]: Name or service not known
If this is really true and no coincidence, some one please let me know
Have a pint on me!
The Azure service dashboard seems to be working here, as are the services my company hosts on Azure.
The dashboard says there's a partial service interruption for storage services in the North Central US datacenter, though.
downvoted for hosting your company on that junk
Please name your company so that I have an idea of the "quality" of service I may expect. Oh, Microsoft you say?
@AC 08:53: Downvoted for being a bell-end.
@AC 09:18: If you downvote people on the Internet just for being a bellend, you'll never get anything else done.
@Bumpy Cat - Good point, I usually just think it, but that one annoyed me during a coffee break.
Hi Steve, is that you?
Works on some connections, not on others.
Come on dear boys get it together....
Office 365 is down for our organization, why do they put so many services on Azure? Really? A game system along side enterprise services? MS may be late to the game but why screw it up and be late? Most late comers would perfect the system.
First off, that's what Azure is... a cloud services platform. Where else would they run their cloud services?
Azure itself isn't down. Still more detail coming out but it looks like there was a global DNS issue which looks to be cleared up now. Unclear where the bad DNS info originated.
Fortunately it looks like the problem didn't last very long.
Yes but why not have an Azure enterprise and an Azure gaming, they don't have to mix. Much like running a business you don't mix personal and business finances, sure you could but your accountant will give you crossed eyes at all the trouble you have given him.
There was no detail when I started noticing the drop in services, DNS wasn't on the radar at that moment, but I'm curious now; playstation network has been having DNS issues last night, our internet service at the office lost DNS early morning. Man in the middle again, like Afghanistan blocking YouTube?
Are we going to start calling this ASOD (the Azure Screen of Death)?
Not really necessary... azure is just another shade of blue with a fancy name.
Basically it's just a more snobby BSOD.
Microsoft can truly design multitasking services.
They can launch, and crash, simultaneously.
I can't connect to my hotmail account here in Oz, is that related?
Can we now infer that the GTA:online cloud services are provided by azure too? They have been shit since launch, are guaranteed to fail every weekend and coincidentally many people are reporting time outs, emptying sessions & cloud unavailable issues today and it isn't even the weekend.
I have suspected for a while that MS were providing Rockstar's (abysmal) cloud services. Would someone at El Reg care to investigate (if web journalists do any investigating anymore?)
 Seems they are investigating, but R* don't want to talk, I'll try to reign in my cynicism in future :)
You have to hand it to Microsoft. In terms of entertainment value they really do lead the IT industry.
I did get a 'Some Xbox Live services are unavailable' message on my 360 console a couple of hours ago, but just assumed that was down to the GMT+1/2 Europeans downloading the 1.3GB day one patch for the XOne...
More cloud!!! Quick, everyone - jump on before you're left behind!
I've been rather sweary lately so I'll refrain for the moment but all the same, it's a getting to be a joke. Not because things go down - that happens - but because companies like MS are fairly FORCING people onto their cloud platforms. Please. Stop.
And always has been.
It's as simple as that.
You really are becoming the replacement Eadon, aren't you?
Don't let the fact that your comments are demonstrably untrue let you stop, though.
Oh look, it's my stalker!
If you look carefully at the article, you'll note that my "demonstrably untrue" comment has in fact just been clearly demonstrated, once again, by Microsoft. It even notes some of those other occasions when Microsoft demonstrated it. There are in fact articles going back decades that demonstrate how awful Windows networking is, and has always been, to the extent that it's become a cliché.
But don't let something as trivial as the facts get in your way.
No, not your stalker - I did see your comments the other day and suggested that if you don't want people to look at your posts and form an opinion about you because of them, there is always the "post anonymously" option.
BTW: What makes you think that you're interesting enough to be stalked?
As for your comment that "MS know nothing about networking" and suggesting that an outage to DNS proves this, you seem to conveniently disregard the fact that there a millions upon millions of devices from living room to desktop to server running MS networking software and doing it perfectly happily. One outage does not "know nothing" make. There are plenty of things to accuse MS of, but being clueless about networking really isn't one of them. Not since about DOS 3.1.
Doesn't Windows use BSD TCP/IP stack from about NT onwards?
"...being clueless about networking really isn't one of them"
Yes it is. As true now as it always has been.
NETBUI, NETBIOS; netbollocks.
@Chris_J - No, it did briefly use the BSD IP stack in Windows NT 3.1 when the implementation was outsourced to a company called Spider Systems (IIRC), but it was replaced with a full in house MS IP stack in Windows NT 3.5.
Hmm this path and files within feels very *nix like to me: /Windows/System32/drivers/etc
Thats on a Windows 7 system.
Surely if it was a pure in house MS implementation they would lump all that into a central registry?
It could be worse - if Gates hadn't been so 'meh' about the Internet in the early days the whole thing could have ended up running on WINS. It's to their credit they realised they had to stop flogging that dead horse
"Don't let the fact that your comments are demonstrably untrue let you stop, though."
I present two examples:
- MS suggesting that VM's moving between HyperV hosts should get new MAC addresses. Maybe it was just a dumbass L3 support person who suggested this, but still...
@Chris_J - You are mixing up BSD tools and the IP/Networking stack. Windows uses the BSD tools for things like FTP, Telnet, etc. etc. All the IP stack stuff is in the registry, the things which the BSD tools require are by necessity in /etc.
If your switches can't handle dynamic MAC address changes, you should probably get more modern switches. Besides, it's perfectly reasonable to change MAC addresses for virtual machines which are moving between physical hosts, I fail to see why this might be a problem?
"If your switches can't handle dynamic MAC address changes, you should probably get more modern switches. Besides, it's perfectly reasonable to change MAC addresses for virtual machines which are moving between physical hosts, I fail to see why this might be a problem?"
It's not a switch problem - they will happily move the packets around. However, layer-3 devices don't know the MAC address is changed and continue to address packets to the old host MAC.
HyperV's competitors have an elegant solution to this same issue that shows some understanding of the networked environment.
Just read up on the MAC address problem - it appears that the MAC will only change at reboot time (all MACs are by default generated dynamically at boot time), if you do a normal migration between systems it shouldn't change, until reboot. You can use SCVMM to assign a permanent MAC (I assume there's a cmdlet to do this as well, should you not have SCVMM). If you're seeing other behaviour, you may want to check it out as it doesn't appear to be what's supposed to be happening.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017