The app is written so that if the primary server is unavailable, it connects to a secondary. It would take only a small amount of work to make it possible to have n number of failovers. It's a nice thing to have a prebuilt implementation of such an animal, but having to write your own is not that bad either -- it's a small cost in comparison to the overall infrastructure needed to support such an environment.
We've been using a similar idea for years. It's pretty much using "scaling out" with some application logic to make it useful for high-availability purposes. At one time, we had 13 subscriber databases (MS SQL 6.5) throughout the world, using transactional replication to keep them in sync. A small bit of logic in the front-end determined which server a user would connect to. In this way we could point users at the server geographically closest to them (which was configurable in a database itself).
Essentially, this seems to be that front-end piece which abstracts the calling app from which server it is connecting to, and can dynamically point that app at another server. I'm sure it will be a handy module for anyone who doesn't want to write their own logic for dynamically determining a connection to a database.
However, the cost of writing that bit of code is much lower than the overhead of maintaining all those database servers (heterogenous replication? ugh). So sure, this is helpful, but anyone with enough wherewithal to set up and maintain a set of synchronized database servers probably has enough sense to be able to set up application logic to utilize those servers anyway.
Marketing department hottie: Oh you sexy IT guy! Tell me more how I can get higher quality and higher compression rates on my music files! I want to know ev-ery-thiiinnggg!
Meanwhile, back in reality...
Marketing department hottie: [silence as she passes by, avoiding piercing leer of geek]
Geek: Hmm, I wonder if she noticed me. Doesn't she know the powers of music compression that I possess? (note to reader: she didn't, and she doesn't care)
OT reference:
Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Leviticus 24:19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.
Deut 19:16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
New Testament reference:
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The nature of the "eye for eye" in the OT was not one of personal revenge, but of defining appropriate punishments to be handed down by lawful authorities (i.e., the courts). What Jesus was referring to was the idea of taking the law into your own hands, and doing it out of a sense of revenge (justice's ugly cousin). It is also interesting that the OT seems to have the harshest words for people who commit perjury.
One of the big reasons to not switch your cell phone company is that you lose your number, and have to deal with changing over to a new number.
If I could keep my number, my incentive to stay with RipOff Cellular goes down, and I'm more likely to switch to UselessMinutes Wireless Inc.
In the end, there's probably just as many people who want to switch from A to B as want to switch from B to A. But even though the numbers of subscribers might remain fairly steady, it is more expensive to lose one customer and gain another than to just keep one.
So, Shock and Awe, the Sony videogame, will be responsible for corrupting youth, but Shock and Awe, the GWBushCorp's real-world enterprise of death and conquest is what, exactly? A beautiful inspiration of courage and restraint, suitable for the instruction and edification of all children? Please. We need to set up a detox center for all the people with Lee Greenwood-addled brains.
It sounds all nice and good, but it's a somewhat contrived scenario. There are lots of plot twists that could radically affect the outcome.
What if the developers of MS project left Microsoft and started their own OpenProject, Inc? One of the things that keeps developers working for the company that makes the software they write is that they just can't take the code, walk out, and start their own company with it. But now it's GPL, so these developers have no reason to stick around if they think they can do better on their own. And now Microsoft is at a huge competitive disadvantage until they can get new developers up to speed.
As far as the idea that Microsoft could change it's business model, if Microsoft wanted to be in the business of a Project ASP, they would be there already. So sure, once they gave away their source of revenue, they'd have to find another, but why would you throw away your dinner then pick through the neighbor's trash to find something to eat?
And how are they supposed to KNOW that? Slashdottings may bring a flood of visitors, but doing it is the only way to know if it will be able to handle it.
Of course there is no guarantee. However, it is often not hard to tell what are the hobby sites and what are those that *might* be able to withstand a/.-ing. You make it sound like no one knows for sure whether that web server someone put on a hacked Vic-20 will be able to handle thousands of hits per minute. And in many cases, sites are affected even if they aren't completely knocked offline. I have no doubt both/. users and web site admins would be extremely grateful for a little bit of effort by/. to help the situation.
If a large number of visitors to a site will bring the site down, or increase the bandwidth bills, the website admins should do something about it.
So how are they supposed to know that they need to do that? When they go from 100 hits/day to a sudden spike of thousands of hits per minute with no warning, do you really think that the admin of that site goofed up? Should all sites, from hobby to corporate, carry lots and lots of excess bandwidth and hardware capacity just in case the tiny chance of being linked to by/. happens?
As I said (but you seem to have ignored) the "slashdot effect" is a symptom. It's not good to just treat a symptom and allow the real problem to continue.
I'm not ignoring anything. I just disagree that there is a problem on the web admin side. Web sites run based off of their normal traffic, not a once-in-a-lifetime/. hit. That is simply responsible management.
Besides, I still fail to see any problem with Slashdot's system. Surely you don't think it's wrong to send a link to a story to one person, so there shouldn't me anything wrong with sending the linke to a larger number of people.
No, it's not wrong for slashdot to post links. They have every right to do so. But it seems quite uncourteous to me to post a link to a site you know will get crushed as a result without helping that site owner when a e-mail even a few minutes before or taking a snapshot of the site/article. I'm always grateful to/.ers who grab and post a mirror of a site so others can see it (I try to do it myself when I can).
Society is at its best when people don't just excercise their rights. The internet/web was built on professional courtesy and sharing. I just think that if you have the opportunity to help someone, you should. You don't have to, but everyone has benefitted from the kindness and courtesy of others when they didn't have to do it either. That's part of the spirit of open source. You'd think that/. editors would understand that.
Gee, I'm sure all the web sites that are suddenly and violently knocked off the web will be happy to know that slashdot is doing this for their subscribers. This seems a little like saying, well, my movie theater is quite flammable, so if you pay me $5 more, I'll make sure to seat you by an exit so you can get out before everyone else dies. It doesn't change the core problem, i.e., that slashdot is posting stories where they know from the outset that the effect is going to be a massive web server smackdown, and providing neither a mirror or a warning to anyone that this is about to happen.
Perhaps now there will be a little bit of warning. When you start seeing the first referrals from slashdot on your web server, those are the subscribers -- the advance guard before the real assault.
Software is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. The freedom to use the tool is always a good thing. How the tool is used is the responsibility of the user, not the tool-maker. This is the fundamental problem we are facing with DRM, EULAs, Palladium, etc. -- it is trying to restrict and control freedom which is inherent to the tool.
Any free/open source software developer should be aware of the ramifications of allowing freedom of use of their software. I think people look at OSS in a very pollyana fashion, thinking it will only be used for helping children find lost puppies or curing cancer or something like that. If you give power to someone, including through software, the temptation is there to use it for evil. It's sad because most OSS types are genuinely interested in the betterment of others, not themselves. But the reality is that you have to make the choice whether to release it.
...oh, wait, the same thing happens here now, thanks to the PATRIOT Act. Never mind. Let's all toast our vodka to Comrades Bush and Ashcroft!
Gas up the Mystery Machine, Scoob!
on
Soundless Music?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Some scientists also claim it is the cause of the uneasy feelings and changes of emotion experienced in places believed to be haunted.
Mr O'Keefe added: "When places affect people physically and they aren't able to explain it, they often attribute their feelings to being near a ghost."
And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
If you disagree with the submitter so much, why did you post it, timothy? Next, you'll be telling us that you knew that the 1991 Xbox guy was faking it all along, but there was nothing you could do but post it anyway.
Let's say a gas line on my neighbor's property breaks and ignites, spewing a torch which is threatening to set my house on fire. If he's not home, I wouldn't have a problem breaking his window in order to get in a shut off the gas. But I would also be prepared to pay for the window -- the protection of my own home is worth it. And I'd be willing to stand before a judge and say, yes, I broke in, because there was a twenty-foot flame shooting across to my home.
If my neighbor leaves and his stereo kicks on at a loud volume, which annoys me, I don't think I have a right to break in to shut off the stereo. The "right" to do something like that has to really match the threat posed. If someone else's network is threatening yours, you should first do everything you can on your own system to block them. If you can't block them, then consider the real severity of the threat. And if you break in, be prepared to have to justify yourself.
Delphi is more popular in Europe, especially eastern Europe. One thing to realize is that delphi has a great IDE, and builds lean, fast executables and pascal is easier for many people to code and maintain than C++, especially given the excellent VCL (visual component library) which makes it very easy to create window-based apps. While Java and.NET have changed the landscape in the U.S., in places where people are still running on old hardware such as, say, Pentium Pro-based servers, lean and fast is still very much needed.
I've always thought that delphi deserves more respect than it gets. I use it all the time to make DLLs that function as plug-ins for a video editing package written in C++.
Slashdot Mirror
The app is written so that if the primary server is unavailable, it connects to a secondary. It would take only a small amount of work to make it possible to have n number of failovers. It's a nice thing to have a prebuilt implementation of such an animal, but having to write your own is not that bad either -- it's a small cost in comparison to the overall infrastructure needed to support such an environment.
Essentially, this seems to be that front-end piece which abstracts the calling app from which server it is connecting to, and can dynamically point that app at another server. I'm sure it will be a handy module for anyone who doesn't want to write their own logic for dynamically determining a connection to a database.
However, the cost of writing that bit of code is much lower than the overhead of maintaining all those database servers (heterogenous replication? ugh). So sure, this is helpful, but anyone with enough wherewithal to set up and maintain a set of synchronized database servers probably has enough sense to be able to set up application logic to utilize those servers anyway.
Entering geek-fantasy bizarro world, please wait...
Marketing department hottie: Oh you sexy IT guy! Tell me more how I can get higher quality and higher compression rates on my music files! I want to know ev-ery-thiiinnggg!
Meanwhile, back in reality...
Marketing department hottie: [silence as she passes by, avoiding piercing leer of geek]
Geek: Hmm, I wonder if she noticed me. Doesn't she know the powers of music compression that I possess? (note to reader: she didn't, and she doesn't care)
Leviticus 24:19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.
Deut 19:16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
New Testament reference: Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The nature of the "eye for eye" in the OT was not one of personal revenge, but of defining appropriate punishments to be handed down by lawful authorities (i.e., the courts). What Jesus was referring to was the idea of taking the law into your own hands, and doing it out of a sense of revenge (justice's ugly cousin). It is also interesting that the OT seems to have the harshest words for people who commit perjury.
I guess we'll be seeing BUS carved into the moon's surface. No one will ever forget the President who tattooed the moon.
If I could keep my number, my incentive to stay with RipOff Cellular goes down, and I'm more likely to switch to UselessMinutes Wireless Inc.
In the end, there's probably just as many people who want to switch from A to B as want to switch from B to A. But even though the numbers of subscribers might remain fairly steady, it is more expensive to lose one customer and gain another than to just keep one.
That was it. Thanks Bander.
should I use something else to extract them? If so, what?
So, Shock and Awe, the Sony videogame, will be responsible for corrupting youth, but Shock and Awe, the GWBushCorp's real-world enterprise of death and conquest is what, exactly? A beautiful inspiration of courage and restraint, suitable for the instruction and edification of all children? Please. We need to set up a detox center for all the people with Lee Greenwood-addled brains.
Well, if you can think of a better way than war to achieve global domination then I'd like to hear it!
What if the developers of MS project left Microsoft and started their own OpenProject, Inc? One of the things that keeps developers working for the company that makes the software they write is that they just can't take the code, walk out, and start their own company with it. But now it's GPL, so these developers have no reason to stick around if they think they can do better on their own. And now Microsoft is at a huge competitive disadvantage until they can get new developers up to speed.
As far as the idea that Microsoft could change it's business model, if Microsoft wanted to be in the business of a Project ASP, they would be there already. So sure, once they gave away their source of revenue, they'd have to find another, but why would you throw away your dinner then pick through the neighbor's trash to find something to eat?
Me too. I thought it was a dupe.
Of course there is no guarantee. However, it is often not hard to tell what are the hobby sites and what are those that *might* be able to withstand a /.-ing. You make it sound like no one knows for sure whether that web server someone put on a hacked Vic-20 will be able to handle thousands of hits per minute. And in many cases, sites are affected even if they aren't completely knocked offline. I have no doubt both /. users and web site admins would be extremely grateful for a little bit of effort by /. to help the situation.
If a large number of visitors to a site will bring the site down, or increase the bandwidth bills, the website admins should do something about it.
So how are they supposed to know that they need to do that? When they go from 100 hits/day to a sudden spike of thousands of hits per minute with no warning, do you really think that the admin of that site goofed up? Should all sites, from hobby to corporate, carry lots and lots of excess bandwidth and hardware capacity just in case the tiny chance of being linked to by /. happens?
As I said (but you seem to have ignored) the "slashdot effect" is a symptom. It's not good to just treat a symptom and allow the real problem to continue.
I'm not ignoring anything. I just disagree that there is a problem on the web admin side. Web sites run based off of their normal traffic, not a once-in-a-lifetime /. hit. That is simply responsible management.
No, it's not wrong for slashdot to post links. They have every right to do so. But it seems quite uncourteous to me to post a link to a site you know will get crushed as a result without helping that site owner when a e-mail even a few minutes before or taking a snapshot of the site/article. I'm always grateful to /.ers who grab and post a mirror of a site so others can see it (I try to do it myself when I can).
Society is at its best when people don't just excercise their rights. The internet/web was built on professional courtesy and sharing. I just think that if you have the opportunity to help someone, you should. You don't have to, but everyone has benefitted from the kindness and courtesy of others when they didn't have to do it either. That's part of the spirit of open source. You'd think that /. editors would understand that.
Perhaps now there will be a little bit of warning. When you start seeing the first referrals from slashdot on your web server, those are the subscribers -- the advance guard before the real assault.
Any free/open source software developer should be aware of the ramifications of allowing freedom of use of their software. I think people look at OSS in a very pollyana fashion, thinking it will only be used for helping children find lost puppies or curing cancer or something like that. If you give power to someone, including through software, the temptation is there to use it for evil. It's sad because most OSS types are genuinely interested in the betterment of others, not themselves. But the reality is that you have to make the choice whether to release it.
...oh, wait, the same thing happens here now, thanks to the PATRIOT Act. Never mind. Let's all toast our vodka to Comrades Bush and Ashcroft!
Mr O'Keefe added: "When places affect people physically and they aren't able to explain it, they often attribute their feelings to being near a ghost."
And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
I know how you feel. I got muscled out by that guy John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt. His .name is my .name too.
"Competitive violent! That's why you're here!!!"
If you disagree with the submitter so much, why did you post it, timothy? Next, you'll be telling us that you knew that the 1991 Xbox guy was faking it all along, but there was nothing you could do but post it anyway.
Just to weed out the flood of duplicate stories.
Without that copyright, the British Government wouldn't have any incentive to print money, and financial catastrophe would result.
If my neighbor leaves and his stereo kicks on at a loud volume, which annoys me, I don't think I have a right to break in to shut off the stereo. The "right" to do something like that has to really match the threat posed. If someone else's network is threatening yours, you should first do everything you can on your own system to block them. If you can't block them, then consider the real severity of the threat. And if you break in, be prepared to have to justify yourself.
I've always thought that delphi deserves more respect than it gets. I use it all the time to make DLLs that function as plug-ins for a video editing package written in C++.