And you'll see this in enterprise SANs.. even a decade ago, an EMC unit would use mirrored pairs of drives at the lowest level available to the operator - so when you decided to build a raid 5 array - you were already using mirrored drives for each element of the array. And yeah, that was expensive.
Yes - running a home raid-5 array with 4 drives (3 for the array, 1 spare) - it's days are limited. The risk profile goes up because data density has grown faster than rebuild times. Fair enough.
That's why raid methods continue to evolve to keep up with the times, and enterprise solutions continue to become more sophisticated. But we'll still be using "Redundant arrays of independent disks" for quite a while I imagine.
Reading the original post again - I'm a little unclear what the question is.
If the question is "How can I manage all this stuff" - you can manage it through puppet.
If the question is "Is there something that can automaticaly do EVERYTHING for me" then the answer is "No" - no matter how much you want to abstract things, at some point, you are going to have to plan and put the system together.
You could roll something sweet with OpenQRM to make it all drag and drop - but you'd have to put in the wrench time to model it after the types of things your organisation has/needs, and you'd have to roll quite a bit of infrastructure out underneath it to make it work.
What you are really asking, I think, is are you missing something in the big picture - and I don't think you are - it's just a matter of scale.
Puppet actually pulls - the clients pull from the master (where the config tree lives) by default every 30 minutes - but this also can be configured to whatever granularity you want. This makes it trivial to have multiple masters and things like that - as far as I can tell, the master doesn't keep track of any state or anything like that, it only provides relevant configuration information to authorized clients.
I'd like to know that too.... while plausible - this sounds like something that's more overhead than it's worth... it's adding several layers of abstraction and complexity for what gain?
"We don't need configuration management because our configuration is an unmanaged mess and managing it would just be more overhead we don't have time for"... ?
Puppet, for one, is very generic. Even if you only use it to push out basic packages and standard configs, even if you don't use any of the templating and fancy hooks and stuff - you are saving yourself work down the road, whether it's moving to virtualizing, switching from linux to bsd, or requiring test/qa/production systems, or maybe even a backup solution. It's got very little to do with rolling out systems every day, and everything to do with consistency and policy enforcement.
Yes, it will require maintenance as your requirements change - but without it, so does the ragtag set of systems you are running.... and unless you are really picky with your documentation and procedures, most of the important details are probably in your head. If you force yourself to define them in puppet (or something similar) then you can focus your efforts better.
Because the publisher, who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music, will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others. Instead, you'll just stay unknown.
"Are you saying two drives of the same batch are going to fail WITHIN THE TIME IT TAKES TO REBUILD THE RAID?"
Statistically speaking - yes - it's much more likely. It's significantly more common. It happens - enough that people warn against the practice.
Given the time it might take to re-build a 1 TB mirror - which is what joe average is trying to do at home - even more so. There is a reason you still see 73GB SAS drives on the market - more, smaller spindles equals more throughput and faster rebuilds.
You realize those big celebs can demand those big dollars because having them act in your movie SELLS your movie, and makes you even more money? It's basic economics... gimme a break.
Ever negotiated any kind of work for hire? You negotiate for what you can get - you don't at some point say "Gee, I should stop charging so much to my clients.. I'm awfully greedy. Why don't I just suggest they go out and get someone less recognized and less reliable?"
"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it."
The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.
I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law. That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
The executive is supposed to take care of *running the business* of the country. The president can Veto, sure, but congress can overrule that. The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it.
"Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications."
Well put.
I would add, though.
- If the network is privately funded, not backed by public concession or right of way, this should not apply if the TOS of are clear about it.
1) Should it matter HOW he made his money, as long as it was legal? Is it okay becuase he's Steve, and he made cool products, -vs- someone who had, say, rich parents? On the flip side, if I was a billionaire, should I not be able to purchase the best medical care for my son, even if he is lazy and not good for much? 2) This is the crux of the public healthcare debate. I'm Canadian - we don't worry about rich people getting better care. We worry about everyone getting better care. We worry about people who need liver transplants getting them, and about having the best, well trained doctors specialists seeing the right poeple at the right time. We are absolutely not fully successful at this - yet we still believe in the concept.
" The DNS organizations who decided to make having an entry in the registry something that costs an unreasonable amount of money were sabotaging the network"
Thats, as described, doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem. That's just a business model that will succeed or fail.
As a content provider, it costs me money to serve content. (It also costs me money to make that content....). Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well. Fair play to them.
PCI covers more than just servers ---- it covers physical security, staff identification, physical access to paperwork, disposal, data retention, lots of corporate policies.......
Slashdot Mirror
wait -ssd's cant' fail?
And you'll see this in enterprise SANs.. even a decade ago, an EMC unit would use mirrored pairs of drives at the lowest level available to the operator - so when you decided to build a raid 5 array - you were already using mirrored drives for each element of the array. And yeah, that was expensive.
That's pretty silly...
Yes - running a home raid-5 array with 4 drives (3 for the array, 1 spare) - it's days are limited. The risk profile goes up because data density has grown faster than rebuild times. Fair enough.
That's why raid methods continue to evolve to keep up with the times, and enterprise solutions continue to become more sophisticated.
But we'll still be using "Redundant arrays of independent disks" for quite a while I imagine.
It is absolutely a vaccine. After being exposed to this combination of things - you both
a) Don't get malaria
and
b) are now immune to malaria
Reading the original post again - I'm a little unclear what the question is.
If the question is "How can I manage all this stuff" - you can manage it through puppet.
If the question is "Is there something that can automaticaly do EVERYTHING for me" then the answer is "No" - no matter how much you want to abstract things, at some point, you are going to have to plan and put the system together.
You could roll something sweet with OpenQRM to make it all drag and drop - but you'd have to put in the wrench time to model it after the types of things your organisation has/needs, and you'd have to roll quite a bit of infrastructure out underneath it to make it work.
What you are really asking, I think, is are you missing something in the big picture - and I don't think you are - it's just a matter of scale.
Puppet actually pulls - the clients pull from the master (where the config tree lives) by default every 30 minutes - but this also can be configured to whatever granularity you want.
This makes it trivial to have multiple masters and things like that - as far as I can tell, the master doesn't keep track of any state or anything like that, it only provides relevant configuration information to authorized clients.
I'd like to know that too.... while plausible - this sounds like something that's more overhead than it's worth... it's adding several layers of abstraction and complexity for what gain?
"We don't need configuration management because our configuration is an unmanaged mess and managing it would just be more overhead we don't have time for"... ?
Puppet, for one, is very generic. Even if you only use it to push out basic packages and standard configs, even if you don't use any of the templating and fancy hooks and stuff - you are saving yourself work down the road, whether it's moving to virtualizing, switching from linux to bsd, or requiring test/qa/production systems, or maybe even a backup solution. It's got very little to do with rolling out systems every day, and everything to do with consistency and policy enforcement.
Yes, it will require maintenance as your requirements change - but without it, so does the ragtag set of systems you are running.... and unless you are really picky with your documentation and procedures, most of the important details are probably in your head. If you force yourself to define them in puppet (or something similar) then you can focus your efforts better.
Because the publisher, who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music, will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others. Instead, you'll just stay unknown.
"Or until the backup company disappears. I suspect hardware is much more stable than any company providing any online backup."
Never spilled a drink on your computer desk or had a power surge?
"Are you saying two drives of the same batch are going to fail WITHIN THE TIME IT TAKES TO REBUILD THE RAID?"
Statistically speaking - yes - it's much more likely. It's significantly more common. It happens - enough that people warn against the practice.
Given the time it might take to re-build a 1 TB mirror - which is what joe average is trying to do at home - even more so.
There is a reason you still see 73GB SAS drives on the market - more, smaller spindles equals more throughput and faster rebuilds.
I guess it could be.
One could also ask any of those people if they feel responsible for their own choices in life.
We aren't communists. The mob doesn't decide what everyone should get paid on some "Fairness" scale.
Travolta gets paid a lot because he's marketable. A soldier doens't get paid a lot because he's replaceable.
You realize those big celebs can demand those big dollars because having them act in your movie SELLS your movie, and makes you even more money? It's basic economics... gimme a break.
Ever negotiated any kind of work for hire? You negotiate for what you can get - you don't at some point say "Gee, I should stop charging so much to my clients.. I'm awfully greedy. Why don't I just suggest they go out and get someone less recognized and less reliable?"
"I have a hardware RAID 0 setup for the data that I need immediate access to."
The only point of using Raid 0 is for increased speed.... but you probably meant Raid1.
And on that note -software raid is not necessarily slower than hardware raid - in fact in many situations, it can be significantly faster.
What's the real fear here... that you won't be able to recover data?
Use NTFS if it's windows.
Use a released version of windows - not a beta.
Software raid-1 is fine - perhaps even better in some cases.
Raid is not a replacement for backups. Please repeat that - many times. Raid is not a replacement for backups.
You real solution is probably a proper daily backup solution and whatever raid-1 is easiest to set up.
If sharing passwords violates the TOS and is worth jail time, then I'd say the people who handed out their passwords are the guilty ones as well.
"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it."
The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.
I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law. That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
The executive is supposed to take care of *running the business* of the country. The president can Veto, sure, but congress can overrule that.
The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it.
"Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications."
Well put.
I would add, though.
- If the network is privately funded, not backed by public concession or right of way, this should not apply if the TOS of are clear about it.
2 very good points for debate.
1) Should it matter HOW he made his money, as long as it was legal? Is it okay becuase he's Steve, and he made cool products, -vs- someone who had, say, rich parents? On the flip side, if I was a billionaire, should I not be able to purchase the best medical care for my son, even if he is lazy and not good for much?
2) This is the crux of the public healthcare debate. I'm Canadian - we don't worry about rich people getting better care. We worry about everyone getting better care. We worry about people who need liver transplants getting them, and about having the best, well trained doctors specialists seeing the right poeple at the right time. We are absolutely not fully successful at this - yet we still believe in the concept.
In most cases you won't get a new IP - you'll get the same one.
" The DNS organizations who decided to make having an entry in the registry something that costs an unreasonable amount of money were sabotaging the network"
Nonsense.
$19/year is unreasonable?
OKay... seriously.
Yes - computers and netwrorks can be accessed remotely without the owner's knowledge.
This is generally not ever used to download movies from bittorrent - it would be slow and inefficient.
Thats, as described, doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem. That's just a business model that will succeed or fail.
As a content provider, it costs me money to serve content. (It also costs me money to make that content....). Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well. Fair play to them.
It's a stupid idea, though.
PCI covers more than just servers ---- it covers physical security, staff identification, physical access to paperwork, disposal, data retention, lots of corporate policies.......
This is the part that confuses me...
Why are police involved at all? Is it common to have police enforcing school policy? What is this, China? Oh wait.. I bet China doesn't do that...
What part of this was criminal in any way?