Fair enough, I should have scrolled down to 18 USC 1030(e)4, but the current law considers far more than FDIC insured operations.
Credit unions, SEC registered brokers, foreign banks ("obviously" not protected by FDIC), and a few other places are so considered.
I do think it's a good idea to continue to keep computers used in interstate commerce considered "protected computer systems" - someone attacking an e-store and snarfing credit card numbers isn't a good thing. It's probably not a bad idea to list credit card processors, too.
A stores half the data, B stores the other half, and C stores the parity. If a single one is down for maintenance, the data is readable.
That's an awful lot like storing parity on B for data on A. Since we've been comparing to RAID terms, dedicated parity storage is part of RAID 3 and RAID 4 - two levels which haven't been common in a long time (replaced with RAID 5 or RAID 6 - both featuring distributed parity).
In a mirrored arrangement of n mirrors, so long as 1 mirror is up, you can read the data. (n-1 mirrors can be down simultaneously.) "Obviously" there will be a resync after an outage.
So on. 7 providers. 5 hold data pieces and 2 hold parity
Or it's still better to just mirror them? cut the data into 7 pieces and write each piece on two providers
I see substantially diminishing returns after 2 providers, but your mileage may vary. I probably don't have to work within your justification framework.
If you don't trust the provider to keep your data intact, don't use that provider.
That's either a ridiculous statement, or completely off-topic.
Neither, actually.
In a design like this, I assume that a storage resource - in this case, a cloud provider - will be either online, or offline. If they're offline, I need to work with a different copy of the data. Using a striping arrangement (or striping with parity) rather than a mirrored arrangement means there may not be another copy available.
Anyone seriously considering putting their data in the cloud hopefully knows that they should keep a copy for themselves as well.
Beyond that, anyone seriously considering putting their data in the cloud needs to read and understand the SLA and ToS and AUP, and make sure that they all align with your goals. If your goal is to use a provider as a backup of your data, you shouldn't select a provider that specifically says that they don't make backups and won't restore your data in the event of a problem.
It should be easy to understand that blindly putting your data "in the cloud" without careful consideration of what that means and what problems come along with it is like using "rm -rf *" as a file compression utility. Sure, it frees up disk space, but the decompression software isn't working right yet.
Any solution to any problem has costs, benefits, and risks associated with it. One must evaluate the various solutions and select the solution(s) that best align with one's goals.
If availability is the goal, duplication (mirroring) would be the way to do it.
While technically mirroring is a mode of "RAID" (RAID 1), typically I hear "RAID" used to mean some form of spanning - combining more than one storage resource into one larger logical storage resource.
As for permanently closing down, if you're a paying customer, you have a reasonable expectation to receive notice that they're terminating the service offering. If you're getting it free, enjoy what you get while you can, and don't expect that complaints will get you more free lunches.
Alter the definition of "Protected Computer" so that the act only covers Federal Government and Financial computer systems, and no others.
I think there needs to be more specificity there.
At least in my state, all corporations are considered financial institutions, so any computer owned by a corporation technically qualifies as a "Financial computer system".
Major problems included microphonic difficulties and tube failures attributed to vibration and acceleration in gun projectiles. The T-3 fuze had a 52% success against a water target when tested in January, 1942
52% success rate is pretty bad when the bullet is expensive, like many spacecraft are.
These are the same proximity fuzes that kept the acid for the battery that powered them in a glass vial which would shatter on firing, activating the battery just before it was used... right?
Also, I'm pretty sure that they had to use extremely ruggedized tubes - metal housings, and larger internal wires to keep the thing from self destructing or deforming to the point of non-operation. These are not likely to be thin-walled glass envelope vacuum tubes, as would be used in household radios and televisions.
Of course, by the time of Star Trek, phasers should be able to automatically lock on the target in real time and hit it, no matter how the target dodges.
This is a good question. I, for one, would like to read the proposed bill to see what is being called for.
Of course, Congressman Greg Walden's press release didn't say he introduced a bill, nor shared it with the public - it merely says he announced that he has a plan to introduce a bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, I should have scrolled down to 18 USC 1030(e)4, but the current law considers far more than FDIC insured operations.
Credit unions, SEC registered brokers, foreign banks ("obviously" not protected by FDIC), and a few other places are so considered.
I do think it's a good idea to continue to keep computers used in interstate commerce considered "protected computer systems" - someone attacking an e-store and snarfing credit card numbers isn't a good thing. It's probably not a bad idea to list credit card processors, too.
Other federal laws define "financial institution" even more broadly.
A stores half the data, B stores the other half, and C stores the parity.
If a single one is down for maintenance, the data is readable.
That's an awful lot like storing parity on B for data on A.
Since we've been comparing to RAID terms, dedicated parity storage is part of RAID 3 and RAID 4 - two levels which haven't been common in a long time (replaced with RAID 5 or RAID 6 - both featuring distributed parity).
In a mirrored arrangement of n mirrors, so long as 1 mirror is up, you can read the data. (n-1 mirrors can be down simultaneously.) "Obviously" there will be a resync after an outage.
So on. 7 providers. 5 hold data pieces and 2 hold parity
Or it's still better to just mirror them? cut the data into 7 pieces and write each piece on two providers
I see substantially diminishing returns after 2 providers, but your mileage may vary. I probably don't have to work within your justification framework.
There is a difference between "not intact" and "not available".
I don't see a value in storing recovery information ("parity" in RAID parlance) on storage service B for the data on storage service A.
I do see value in having a complete second copy ready to use on service B, for times when service A has a planned (or unplanned) outage.
This is robustness and availability through failover.
If you don't trust the provider to keep your data intact, don't use that provider.
That's either a ridiculous statement, or completely off-topic.
Neither, actually.
In a design like this, I assume that a storage resource - in this case, a cloud provider - will be either online, or offline. If they're offline, I need to work with a different copy of the data. Using a striping arrangement (or striping with parity) rather than a mirrored arrangement means there may not be another copy available.
Then perhaps offline backups are a better choice in your application.
A USB hard drive or two and a safe deposit box should be substantially more affordable.
Anyone seriously considering putting their data in the cloud hopefully knows that they should keep a copy for themselves as well.
Beyond that, anyone seriously considering putting their data in the cloud needs to read and understand the SLA and ToS and AUP, and make sure that they all align with your goals. If your goal is to use a provider as a backup of your data, you shouldn't select a provider that specifically says that they don't make backups and won't restore your data in the event of a problem.
It should be easy to understand that blindly putting your data "in the cloud" without careful consideration of what that means and what problems come along with it is like using "rm -rf *" as a file compression utility. Sure, it frees up disk space, but the decompression software isn't working right yet.
Any solution to any problem has costs, benefits, and risks associated with it. One must evaluate the various solutions and select the solution(s) that best align with one's goals.
This AC is on the right track. One man's paranoia is another man's reasonable precaution.
No points today, or this would be modded up Insightful.
Mine can just stay green. This can be considered a cost reduction - no need to install orange or red LED's in 'em.
If availability is the goal, duplication (mirroring) would be the way to do it.
While technically mirroring is a mode of "RAID" (RAID 1), typically I hear "RAID" used to mean some form of spanning - combining more than one storage resource into one larger logical storage resource.
As for permanently closing down, if you're a paying customer, you have a reasonable expectation to receive notice that they're terminating the service offering. If you're getting it free, enjoy what you get while you can, and don't expect that complaints will get you more free lunches.
If you don't trust the provider to keep your data intact, don't use that provider.
If you need more storage, pay for it. The cost is not prohibitive - 100GB or so for under US$10/mo is pretty easy to find.
If $10/month prices you out of the market, there are better things to worry about than encrypting files and storing them in the cloud.
Most managers are tasked with creating stability and predictability.
Most entrepreneurs have no such commission - the goal is to make money. It's easier to take risks in that pursuit.
Alter the definition of "Protected Computer" so that the act only covers Federal Government and Financial computer systems, and no others.
I think there needs to be more specificity there.
At least in my state, all corporations are considered financial institutions, so any computer owned by a corporation technically qualifies as a "Financial computer system".
The article you linked says
Major problems included microphonic difficulties and tube failures attributed to vibration and acceleration in gun projectiles. The T-3 fuze had a 52% success against a water target when tested in January, 1942
52% success rate is pretty bad when the bullet is expensive, like many spacecraft are.
These are the same proximity fuzes that kept the acid for the battery that powered them in a glass vial which would shatter on firing, activating the battery just before it was used... right?
Also, I'm pretty sure that they had to use extremely ruggedized tubes - metal housings, and larger internal wires to keep the thing from self destructing or deforming to the point of non-operation. These are not likely to be thin-walled glass envelope vacuum tubes, as would be used in household radios and televisions.
Of course, by the time of Star Trek, phasers should be able to automatically lock on the target in real time and hit it, no matter how the target dodges.
So why do the crew keep practicing their aim?
Maybe the orbit that's directly reachable from the space-gun isn't where you want your spacecraft to go.
It's a lot easier to move the satellite than the gun. (Operation of a space-gun sort of depends on this.)
Does this mean we need to prepare for a Goa'uld invasion?
Calcium sulfate is water soluble.
Strontium sulfate is somewhat water soluble.
The advantage of barium sulfate is that it's not water soluble.
I say anyone needing a contrast drinks several bottles of Goldschlager before the procedure.
We have a winner. The product is apparently grossly misnamed.
Does the bill ban JUST platinum coins?
This is a good question. I, for one, would like to read the proposed bill to see what is being called for.
Of course, Congressman Greg Walden's press release didn't say he introduced a bill, nor shared it with the public - it merely says he announced that he has a plan to introduce a bill.
This. I don't worry about unwritten rules, I follow the written rules.
For those of you playing along at home, that 478Mm crater is substantially larger than the Earth's 12.8Mm diameter.
Right... NASA doesn't make math mistakes.
Remember the Tunguska event?
No, I don't. It was about 70 years before my time.
I've heard of it, but I don't remember it.
Is it just me, or is that planet getting closer?
This will probably bring the effective US vehicle and fuel taxes in line with, say, Europe's.