If you have a single machine, then Oracle is the best performing database, followed by Postgres. When you need more than 4 dedicated servers hosting a database, then mongo can handle about 180% of the volume that oracle can, and about 220% the volume of postgres, and about 110% the volume of Casandra.
This, this, a million times this. A recent employer needed to be able to sustain 250,000 inserts per second. Not 24/7, mind you, but at random prolonged intervals throughout the day. The "PostgreSQL is the fast" chart shows it handling 10,600 bulk load operations per second or 1,700 individual inserts per second. That would be about 1/150th of the insert load we needed to handle.
I'm a huge fan of PostgreSQL - when it's appropriate. If you need strong relational and consistency guarantees, there's nothing I'd recommend over it. But sometimes you just need to move enormous amounts of data around very, very quickly. That's the use case where various NoSQL stores suddenly become very attractive. We chose Cassandra here because its big-O algorithmic complexity matched up very nicely with our access patterns, being O(1) where we needed it to be and O(n^2) where we couldn't care less.
Look at the "MongoDB 2.4/PostgreSQL 9.4 Relative Performance Comparison" and see that MongoDB's bars are much higher than PostgreSQL's, with labels like "276%" and "465%". That looks like MongoDB is much better, right? Oh, oops! Apparently that's how much slower MongoDB is.
That's certainly possible. Alternatively, the demand for customer privacy might have ratcheted up enough recently that Apple et al started taking them seriously. Not so long ago, such things were something only cypherpunks and a few other geeks cared about. Now my mother-in-law wants to know if her iPhone is secure. That's a sea change in customer opinion, and Apple's and Google's actions could be chalked up to simply meeting market demand.
Change the subject to house keys and the company to Master Lock. Does Mr. Comey, who is employed by me and my fellow taxpayers, also disagree with strong locks on houses? "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Yes. That's one application, of many, for locks. They can also be used for securing my person, house, papers, and effects, as is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. I want to lock my house at night, not just to keep out the police but to keep out everyone who doesn't live here. I want to lock my phone at night for exactly the same reasons. Pity if that's an inconvenience to someone; frankly, I don't care.
Privilege escalation is always the kernel's fault. A failed/exploited process should never be able to gain control of a system.
Bullshit. First, "shellshock" isn't a privilege escalation bug, it's a remote code execution bug. Second, an overly liberal/etc/sudoers is a time bomb waiting to happen but has nothing to do with the kernel. Combine the two - say when a dev has something like httpd ALL=(ALL) ALL so that users can change their password via a web interface or something insane but common like that - and suddenly Johnny Cracker can hack the Gibson with only a single authorized setuid() call.
Netflix certainly isn't perfect, but they're Pretty Darn Good (tm). I haven't experienced any more glitches with streaming Netflix than I have with Comcast breaking other downloads.
Meanwhile, even with their 'kill stuff randomly' methodology, the wrong thing still dies ever so often and brings the whole thing to a screeching halt.
The whole idea behind Chaos Monkey is to make sure there's no such "the wrong thing" single point of failure. Having talked to their SREs, I think such outages are exceedingly rare.
Re:3.14 sounds like a pi-in-the-sky release
on
GNOME 3.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
When hosting your app in the cloud, regardless of provider, it is considered best practice to design for failure.
Netflix goes so far as to randomly kill services throughout the day. Their idea is that it's better to find systems that aren't auto-healing correctly by testing recovery during routine operations than to be surprised by it at 3AM. It's successful to the point that you generally don't know that the streaming server you were connected to has been killed and a peer took over for it. That is how you make reliable cloud services.
so you've never worked on vertical computer systems?
Fixed that for you. You're conflating vertically scaled monoliths with "serious systems". That's quaint. While there are certainly still use cases for that kind of bulletproof all-your-eggs-in-one-basket architecture, that's a niche compared to the number of applications where horizontally scaled eventually consistent architecture is more appropriate.
The mainframe and vms clusters I've used had databases working for years (over a decade in one case as new hardware joined sequentially to cluster as old retired).
Undoubtedly, and the distributed clusters I've used where you can make progress as long as at least some reasonable subset of nodes are still alive have similar uptimes. When was the last time you heard about Google being completely dead in the water? Their software was written with the expectation that failures happen (and a lot at their scale) so that clients need to intelligently reconnect to unresponsive servers, etc. That design seems to be working out pretty well for them.
That reeks of sour grapes. "I don't want to play the games I can't run! I don't want to download the apps that aren't available!"
My iPhone is **not** a toy, I use it for doing business. I have roughly a zillion apps, for very precisely described needs. Only the bare basics were on the phone when I got it, and I was able to pick a great SSH client, slick personal finance app, excellent public transit apps, a nice RPN calculator, my bank's app (so I can deposit checks by taking pictures of them), Yelp for when I want to take my team to a good dinner on business trips, a few instant messengers (because I can't get all my friends to "upgrade" to the ones I like), a document scanner with OCR, our corporate chat client, an outstanding GTD system (wassup, OmniFocus?), and a passel of games for idling away downtime at the airport.
I'm sure a BlackBerry would meet my needs if I had very few needs. But then again, I use Unix as an IDE and drive a minivan.
I don't think there are accurate market share numbers available, and most of what you see are educated guesses. Here's a link to mobile usage which shows Android at 45.01%, iOS at 44.34%, Java ME (!!!!) at 3.77%, and Windows Phone at 2.69%. BlackBerry at 1.18% comes in behind Symbian at 2.61%.
As I can't think of a good reason why Windows would be disproportionately undercounted compared to iOS (unlike Android which is widely available on dirt cheap phones in developing nations), I'd say Windows Phone is a whole hell of a lot very far behind iOS.
But if you and I are using the same library, why make the visitor fetch and store it twice? That's a slower startup for both of our sites. Multiplied across hundreds of thousands of jQuery-using instances, it adds up.
The fastest GET is the GET which need not be made.
The purpose for parking JavaScript on a CDN is so that your visitors are likely to already have it in their cache. A million sites referring to the same URL is far more resource friendly than 10,000 sites hosting their own copy.
You're going to the wrong conferences and for the wrong reasons. I go to a pretty well known one each year that I can and my employer gets huge returns on it. The value isn't from going to the training seminars - honestly, I know more about the subject than most of the presenters. The huge win is in identifying ecosystem trends ("oh, I guess we've collectively decided to follow this path now") and rubbing elbows with peers from other companies ("we had that problem, too, and this is how we solved it").
Conferences are probably inefficient at training, but that's not really what you'd want to attend one.
Same thing with IPv6. I've heard educated people say "It'll be a few more years until we just run out of address space there, too."
Careful there. By design, the IPv6 address space is very sparse. For instance, my house has a/48 netblock allocated to it. If that were the universal rule, the effective address space would be 2^48 networks, not 2^128 hosts. That's also assuming that all of the/48 space is allocated perfectly and densely, and not like a/16 per ISP which would mean that we'd never be able to have more than 66,000 ISPs.
IPv6 will not feasibly support 2^128 hosts because it was never meant for each host to be consecutively numbered. While your coworker is incorrect, your standpoint isn't exactly right, either.
The Synology has a nice backup program let's me to back up data to an Amazon S3 account.
It also has a Glacier backup, which is great for huge backups that you don't need to restore often (or ever). I use Time Machine to backup our laptops to our DS412+, and it pushes those backup volumes up to Glacier once a week. If something catastrophic happened like a massive earthquake or a house fire, we could recover all our most important data (including irreplaceable like our photos) just by replacing the hardware and clicking "restore". For less than $10 a month, that's a great feeling.
I'm Just Some Guy. And yes, I'd be furious if I gave my kids a CD and they whined as petulantly as half the posts I've been reading here and on Twitter. It's OK not to like any particular band, but I lack an understanding of the amount of entitlement required to rant about someone receiving a free gift that they have every ability to ignore./p?
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a single machine, then Oracle is the best performing database, followed by Postgres. When you need more than 4 dedicated servers hosting a database, then mongo can handle about 180% of the volume that oracle can, and about 220% the volume of postgres, and about 110% the volume of Casandra.
This, this, a million times this. A recent employer needed to be able to sustain 250,000 inserts per second. Not 24/7, mind you, but at random prolonged intervals throughout the day. The "PostgreSQL is the fast" chart shows it handling 10,600 bulk load operations per second or 1,700 individual inserts per second. That would be about 1/150th of the insert load we needed to handle.
I'm a huge fan of PostgreSQL - when it's appropriate. If you need strong relational and consistency guarantees, there's nothing I'd recommend over it. But sometimes you just need to move enormous amounts of data around very, very quickly. That's the use case where various NoSQL stores suddenly become very attractive. We chose Cassandra here because its big-O algorithmic complexity matched up very nicely with our access patterns, being O(1) where we needed it to be and O(n^2) where we couldn't care less.
Look at the "MongoDB 2.4/PostgreSQL 9.4 Relative Performance Comparison" and see that MongoDB's bars are much higher than PostgreSQL's, with labels like "276%" and "465%". That looks like MongoDB is much better, right? Oh, oops! Apparently that's how much slower MongoDB is.
That's certainly possible. Alternatively, the demand for customer privacy might have ratcheted up enough recently that Apple et al started taking them seriously. Not so long ago, such things were something only cypherpunks and a few other geeks cared about. Now my mother-in-law wants to know if her iPhone is secure. That's a sea change in customer opinion, and Apple's and Google's actions could be chalked up to simply meeting market demand.
And therefore we should give up entirely, having been made to choose between perfect security and no security.
Change the subject to house keys and the company to Master Lock. Does Mr. Comey, who is employed by me and my fellow taxpayers, also disagree with strong locks on houses? "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Yes. That's one application, of many, for locks. They can also be used for securing my person, house, papers, and effects, as is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. I want to lock my house at night, not just to keep out the police but to keep out everyone who doesn't live here. I want to lock my phone at night for exactly the same reasons. Pity if that's an inconvenience to someone; frankly, I don't care.
What about FastCGI? Should it be similarly affected? A lot of people run PHP and so on that way.
Privilege escalation is always the kernel's fault. A failed/exploited process should never be able to gain control of a system.
Bullshit. First, "shellshock" isn't a privilege escalation bug, it's a remote code execution bug. Second, an overly liberal /etc/sudoers is a time bomb waiting to happen but has nothing to do with the kernel. Combine the two - say when a dev has something like httpd ALL=(ALL) ALL so that users can change their password via a web interface or something insane but common like that - and suddenly Johnny Cracker can hack the Gibson with only a single authorized setuid() call.
Netflix certainly isn't perfect, but they're Pretty Darn Good (tm). I haven't experienced any more glitches with streaming Netflix than I have with Comcast breaking other downloads.
Meanwhile, even with their 'kill stuff randomly' methodology, the wrong thing still dies ever so often and brings the whole thing to a screeching halt.
The whole idea behind Chaos Monkey is to make sure there's no such "the wrong thing" single point of failure. Having talked to their SREs, I think such outages are exceedingly rare.
I'll wait for 6.28.
I've thrown in the tau'l.
When hosting your app in the cloud, regardless of provider, it is considered best practice to design for failure.
Netflix goes so far as to randomly kill services throughout the day. Their idea is that it's better to find systems that aren't auto-healing correctly by testing recovery during routine operations than to be surprised by it at 3AM. It's successful to the point that you generally don't know that the streaming server you were connected to has been killed and a peer took over for it. That is how you make reliable cloud services.
so you've never worked on vertical computer systems?
Fixed that for you. You're conflating vertically scaled monoliths with "serious systems". That's quaint. While there are certainly still use cases for that kind of bulletproof all-your-eggs-in-one-basket architecture, that's a niche compared to the number of applications where horizontally scaled eventually consistent architecture is more appropriate.
The mainframe and vms clusters I've used had databases working for years (over a decade in one case as new hardware joined sequentially to cluster as old retired).
Undoubtedly, and the distributed clusters I've used where you can make progress as long as at least some reasonable subset of nodes are still alive have similar uptimes. When was the last time you heard about Google being completely dead in the water? Their software was written with the expectation that failures happen (and a lot at their scale) so that clients need to intelligently reconnect to unresponsive servers, etc. That design seems to be working out pretty well for them.
For a few years now, it's been difficult to post anything about BlackBerry that didn't involve bad news or negative commentary.
That reeks of sour grapes. "I don't want to play the games I can't run! I don't want to download the apps that aren't available!"
My iPhone is **not** a toy, I use it for doing business. I have roughly a zillion apps, for very precisely described needs. Only the bare basics were on the phone when I got it, and I was able to pick a great SSH client, slick personal finance app, excellent public transit apps, a nice RPN calculator, my bank's app (so I can deposit checks by taking pictures of them), Yelp for when I want to take my team to a good dinner on business trips, a few instant messengers (because I can't get all my friends to "upgrade" to the ones I like), a document scanner with OCR, our corporate chat client, an outstanding GTD system (wassup, OmniFocus?), and a passel of games for idling away downtime at the airport.
I'm sure a BlackBerry would meet my needs if I had very few needs. But then again, I use Unix as an IDE and drive a minivan.
I don't think there are accurate market share numbers available, and most of what you see are educated guesses. Here's a link to mobile usage which shows Android at 45.01%, iOS at 44.34%, Java ME (!!!!) at 3.77%, and Windows Phone at 2.69%. BlackBerry at 1.18% comes in behind Symbian at 2.61%.
As I can't think of a good reason why Windows would be disproportionately undercounted compared to iOS (unlike Android which is widely available on dirt cheap phones in developing nations), I'd say Windows Phone is a whole hell of a lot very far behind iOS.
But if you and I are using the same library, why make the visitor fetch and store it twice? That's a slower startup for both of our sites. Multiplied across hundreds of thousands of jQuery-using instances, it adds up.
The fastest GET is the GET which need not be made.
The purpose for parking JavaScript on a CDN is so that your visitors are likely to already have it in their cache. A million sites referring to the same URL is far more resource friendly than 10,000 sites hosting their own copy.
Something like Jekyll can never have a server-side exploit, and statically-generated sites are certainly popular enough among larger projects.
I wonder how many of those phones went to carriers and counted as 'First day sales'? How many actual _humans_ bought phones?
Since Apple reports sales to end users, approximately 0 and 10,000,000, respectively.
Most likely, sure. But again, that's not what conferences do best anyway.
You're going to the wrong conferences and for the wrong reasons. I go to a pretty well known one each year that I can and my employer gets huge returns on it. The value isn't from going to the training seminars - honestly, I know more about the subject than most of the presenters. The huge win is in identifying ecosystem trends ("oh, I guess we've collectively decided to follow this path now") and rubbing elbows with peers from other companies ("we had that problem, too, and this is how we solved it").
Conferences are probably inefficient at training, but that's not really what you'd want to attend one.
Same thing with IPv6. I've heard educated people say "It'll be a few more years until we just run out of address space there, too."
Careful there. By design, the IPv6 address space is very sparse. For instance, my house has a /48 netblock allocated to it. If that were the universal rule, the effective address space would be 2^48 networks, not 2^128 hosts. That's also assuming that all of the /48 space is allocated perfectly and densely, and not like a /16 per ISP which would mean that we'd never be able to have more than 66,000 ISPs.
IPv6 will not feasibly support 2^128 hosts because it was never meant for each host to be consecutively numbered. While your coworker is incorrect, your standpoint isn't exactly right, either.
The Synology has a nice backup program let's me to back up data to an Amazon S3 account.
It also has a Glacier backup, which is great for huge backups that you don't need to restore often (or ever). I use Time Machine to backup our laptops to our DS412+, and it pushes those backup volumes up to Glacier once a week. If something catastrophic happened like a massive earthquake or a house fire, we could recover all our most important data (including irreplaceable like our photos) just by replacing the hardware and clicking "restore". For less than $10 a month, that's a great feeling.
Young Wolfgang accepts your challenge.
Let me guess: you're currently grounded?
I'm Just Some Guy. And yes, I'd be furious if I gave my kids a CD and they whined as petulantly as half the posts I've been reading here and on Twitter. It's OK not to like any particular band, but I lack an understanding of the amount of entitlement required to rant about someone receiving a free gift that they have every ability to ignore./p?