Correct, the writes should happen roughly in parallel but for the offsite datacenter there will be the latency of the round-trip to send the data and receive the commit confirmation. So latency to the offsite datacenter will need to be factored in plus any overhead involved with managing simultaneous writes to geographically disparate datastores. That's my best guess as to why they said "significantly higher latency".
A new option for higher availability using synchronous replication for reads and writes, at the cost of significantly higher latency
Anyone know some numbers around what "significantly higher latency" means? The current performance looks to be about 200ms on average. Assuming this higher availability model doesn't commit a DB transaction until it's written to two separate datacenters, is this around 300 - 400ms for each put to the datastore?
Did you skip over my original post? There was a recent court ruling that says terms of service for a website can be enforced.
Did you skip over my reply? I'll repeat it:
The exception you noted [in the recent court ruling you provided a link for] for a human doesn't apply as the human is capable of receiving an offer, considering that offer, then accepting it and therefore meets the three conditions for a binding contract.
You visit my server to get a free webpage with a special browser. I have a file called robots.txt and a notice (tos.html) linked to on every page in the site that says, you can request this page, but don't go visiting pages in this directory. You ignore that and go and index all the files, including that 600GB file I had lying around, and you eat up all my bandwidth for the month. I have you arrested for computer trespassing.
The thrust of your matter will revolve around whether you can prove to a court that robots.txt, something which has not been codified into any law, establishes a binding contract between a bot and a site owner. Every court case I'm aware of which has attempted to show this for a bot has failed as it doesn't meet the three criteria for a contract: offer, consideration, and acceptance. The same applies for your terms of service, something which isn't in a computer-readable format like robots.txt. If robots.txt has never been shown to establish a contract, then an arbitrarily linked file would similarly fail.
Again, this is all about bots. The exception you noted for a human doesn't apply as the human is capable of receiving an offer, considering that offer, then accepting it and therefore meets the three conditions for a binding contract.
You're a user on my site. You annoy everyone on the site and cause people to leave. I tell you to take a hike and ban your account. You sign up for a new account against the terms of service and annoy everyone on the site again. I sue you for disrupting my service and according to precedent that I cited in my original post, you're not only going to lose that case, but there's a good chance you can see some jail time if I convince the DA to press criminal charges.
Get it?
As it applies to a human? Makes total sense as to sign up for an account, there is offer, consideration, and acceptance. I would fully support your right to sue and/or press for criminal charges. And if someone wrote a bot which maliciously signed up for accounts, detected when it was banned, and signed up for a new account, then that makes sense as well and you would be right to sue and/or press for criminal charges against the author of said malicious bot.
For a well-behaving bot whose sole purpose is to request a page once in order to check for copyrighted content? Sorry, I'm not aware of any legal precedent which would apply here. Google has lost lawsuits for copyright infringement for displaying cached versions of spidered pages, but there was no finding against Google with relation to requesting the content in the first place. I'll believe you when you can demonstrate a court case which applies, but so far your argument by human examples fail to convince how this legal theory would apply.
This is like putting a price on one's life. Even asking such a question is disgusting, and shows a complete lack of humanity.
For $1,000,000,000,000 we can extend the life of this 97 year old person who lives in chronic pain by 24 hours. By your logic, we should do it because it's disgusting and shows a complete lack of humanity to not go ahead with the treatment.
yes, but GP was talking about cancer. Is any joke appropriate?
Of course. A very widely observed human response to tragedy is to make jokes. It's a coping mechanism for many people, whether they're personally involved or not. It's cathartic and relieves the tension of an otherwise uncomfortable topic.
Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. Invariably someone else will pop in and tell me that it's not their fault that our business model sucks. My response is simple: you either care about the site's well-being, or you don't. As for our business model sucking, we've been here for 12 years, online-only. Not many sites can say that.
Hook up electrodes to the controllers that at the same time offer gradually increasing levels of electrocution and let us absorb nicotine through our skin. Only way to play without risk of death or any pesky side effects of severe electroshock is to buy the game. Of course that means the PS3 or PS4 will once again require more power and downgrade controllers from being wireless to wired but its the best thing for the sake of progress.
What are you talking about? For example, Funcom, Blizzard, CCP won't do such a thing.
I think the AC was talking about removing ACCESS to your account, not removing the account contents. If you stop paying subscription fees, Blizzard won't let you continue playing the game indefinitely.
No kidding, I can't imagine how insurance companies could see insuring groups as being a higher risk than insuring individuals. Their entire industry is based on the idea of groups being a better risk for them than individuals.
The idea of a group being lower risk is the same idea as diversifying your portfolio by buying multiple stocks. But only in the case where those stocks are fairly independent. In other words, you don't diversify your portfolio by buying stocks in GM, Chrysler, Audi, and so on because if something negatively affects the auto industry as a whole, you lose across the board.
So I may not be an actuary, but seems obvious to me that a very closely related group increases risk whereas an unrelated group decreases risk.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
You do understand that the website operator/owner can revoke access to any part of the server on a whim.
Now you're just trolling. That's not even a rational response to the question I asked.
Yeah, like I said, if you write an app for a specific purpose you're responsible for the actions of that app.
So if your web server sends information that crashes my browser, will you accept responsibility for that? After all, you're responsible for the actions of the web server you choose to run.
Awesome, so anyone can DoS a server, send mass spam or distribute a virus as long as a bot does it, because a judge will rule that the bot acted on its own and wasn't developed or set loose by anyone at all.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
If the software wrote itself you might have a point, otherwise the people who wrote it are the ones responsible for how it acts.
How it acts is by requesting information from a webserver. If such activity does not violate any laws then it follows that it must be a legal activity. However, your premise is not that requesting information from a webserver is illegal, but that a computer program requesting information from a webserver is capable of entering into a contract on behalf of the computer program's authors based on the contents of the information being returned. That is ridiculous. What evidence can you supply that a court would accept this legal theory of yours?
And making it to the end of Modern Warfare 2 feels like you only played through Chapter 1 and they ripped the rest out of the game to make the launch date.
Right... because a judge will find that offer, consideration, and acceptance of a contract took place between a webserver and a bot? The court case you cite is irrelevant to an automated program that has no understanding and cannot accept conditions presented online.
IT. IS. LAW!!! You need to make a copy of a copyrighted work to view that work on the internet. You cannot make a copy unless you have permission. robots.txt gives that permission BY CONVENTION on the internet.
Let me guess: you check robots.txt every time you browse to a new website and if that website has no robots.txt, you leave because you don't have permission to view anything?
What do you know... we actually use that at work. Indirectly, anyways, through OpenBSD's gzipped mirror in conjunction with spamd.
Thanks for the work you put into it! Because of spamd (and lists like yours, Beck's traplist, and so on) we're wasting over 1100 hours of spammer time every day.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the writes should happen in parallel.
Correct, the writes should happen roughly in parallel but for the offsite datacenter there will be the latency of the round-trip to send the data and receive the commit confirmation. So latency to the offsite datacenter will need to be factored in plus any overhead involved with managing simultaneous writes to geographically disparate datastores. That's my best guess as to why they said "significantly higher latency".
A new option for higher availability using synchronous replication for reads and writes, at the cost of significantly higher latency
Anyone know some numbers around what "significantly higher latency" means? The current performance looks to be about 200ms on average. Assuming this higher availability model doesn't commit a DB transaction until it's written to two separate datacenters, is this around 300 - 400ms for each put to the datastore?
What a strange little man you are.
Did you skip over my original post? There was a recent court ruling that says terms of service for a website can be enforced.
Did you skip over my reply? I'll repeat it:
The exception you noted [in the recent court ruling you provided a link for] for a human doesn't apply as the human is capable of receiving an offer, considering that offer, then accepting it and therefore meets the three conditions for a binding contract.
No it is called Digital Restrictions Management.
Did you not read as far as the third sentence where he said:
And "Rights" really means "Restrictions."
Correcting him when he says exactly what you correct him on is a tad redundant, don't you think?
You visit my server to get a free webpage with a special browser. I have a file called robots.txt and a notice (tos.html) linked to on every page in the site that says, you can request this page, but don't go visiting pages in this directory. You ignore that and go and index all the files, including that 600GB file I had lying around, and you eat up all my bandwidth for the month. I have you arrested for computer trespassing.
The thrust of your matter will revolve around whether you can prove to a court that robots.txt, something which has not been codified into any law, establishes a binding contract between a bot and a site owner. Every court case I'm aware of which has attempted to show this for a bot has failed as it doesn't meet the three criteria for a contract: offer, consideration, and acceptance. The same applies for your terms of service, something which isn't in a computer-readable format like robots.txt. If robots.txt has never been shown to establish a contract, then an arbitrarily linked file would similarly fail.
Again, this is all about bots. The exception you noted for a human doesn't apply as the human is capable of receiving an offer, considering that offer, then accepting it and therefore meets the three conditions for a binding contract.
You're a user on my site. You annoy everyone on the site and cause people to leave. I tell you to take a hike and ban your account. You sign up for a new account against the terms of service and annoy everyone on the site again. I sue you for disrupting my service and according to precedent that I cited in my original post, you're not only going to lose that case, but there's a good chance you can see some jail time if I convince the DA to press criminal charges.
Get it?
As it applies to a human? Makes total sense as to sign up for an account, there is offer, consideration, and acceptance. I would fully support your right to sue and/or press for criminal charges. And if someone wrote a bot which maliciously signed up for accounts, detected when it was banned, and signed up for a new account, then that makes sense as well and you would be right to sue and/or press for criminal charges against the author of said malicious bot.
For a well-behaving bot whose sole purpose is to request a page once in order to check for copyrighted content? Sorry, I'm not aware of any legal precedent which would apply here. Google has lost lawsuits for copyright infringement for displaying cached versions of spidered pages, but there was no finding against Google with relation to requesting the content in the first place. I'll believe you when you can demonstrate a court case which applies, but so far your argument by human examples fail to convince how this legal theory would apply.
This is like putting a price on one's life. Even asking such a question is disgusting, and shows a complete lack of humanity.
For $1,000,000,000,000 we can extend the life of this 97 year old person who lives in chronic pain by 24 hours. By your logic, we should do it because it's disgusting and shows a complete lack of humanity to not go ahead with the treatment.
Closely related: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/courageous_man_refuses_to_believe
yes, but GP was talking about cancer. Is any joke appropriate?
Of course. A very widely observed human response to tragedy is to make jokes. It's a coping mechanism for many people, whether they're personally involved or not. It's cathartic and relieves the tension of an otherwise uncomfortable topic.
RTFA.
FTFA:
Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. Invariably someone else will pop in and tell me that it's not their fault that our business model sucks. My response is simple: you either care about the site's well-being, or you don't. As for our business model sucking, we've been here for 12 years, online-only. Not many sites can say that.
Hook up electrodes to the controllers that at the same time offer gradually increasing levels of electrocution and let us absorb nicotine through our skin. Only way to play without risk of death or any pesky side effects of severe electroshock is to buy the game. Of course that means the PS3 or PS4 will once again require more power and downgrade controllers from being wireless to wired but its the best thing for the sake of progress.
This is precisely the reason I avoided Bioshock.
What are you talking about? For example, Funcom, Blizzard, CCP won't do such a thing.
I think the AC was talking about removing ACCESS to your account, not removing the account contents. If you stop paying subscription fees, Blizzard won't let you continue playing the game indefinitely.
So game companies should hire chauffeurs to drive players back home after their demo game strands them in the middle of nowhere? Wait, what?
No kidding, I can't imagine how insurance companies could see insuring groups as being a higher risk than insuring individuals. Their entire industry is based on the idea of groups being a better risk for them than individuals.
The idea of a group being lower risk is the same idea as diversifying your portfolio by buying multiple stocks. But only in the case where those stocks are fairly independent. In other words, you don't diversify your portfolio by buying stocks in GM, Chrysler, Audi, and so on because if something negatively affects the auto industry as a whole, you lose across the board.
So I may not be an actuary, but seems obvious to me that a very closely related group increases risk whereas an unrelated group decreases risk.
So his first motion before the court will be to change the venue to where the content was created... in Mars orbit.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
You do understand that the website operator/owner can revoke access to any part of the server on a whim.
Now you're just trolling. That's not even a rational response to the question I asked.
Yeah, like I said, if you write an app for a specific purpose you're responsible for the actions of that app.
So if your web server sends information that crashes my browser, will you accept responsibility for that? After all, you're responsible for the actions of the web server you choose to run.
Awesome, so anyone can DoS a server, send mass spam or distribute a virus as long as a bot does it, because a judge will rule that the bot acted on its own and wasn't developed or set loose by anyone at all.
You do understand that those activities are illegal but requesting information from a webserver is not illegal, right?
If the software wrote itself you might have a point, otherwise the people who wrote it are the ones responsible for how it acts.
How it acts is by requesting information from a webserver. If such activity does not violate any laws then it follows that it must be a legal activity. However, your premise is not that requesting information from a webserver is illegal, but that a computer program requesting information from a webserver is capable of entering into a contract on behalf of the computer program's authors based on the contents of the information being returned. That is ridiculous. What evidence can you supply that a court would accept this legal theory of yours?
And making it to the end of Modern Warfare 2 feels like you only played through Chapter 1 and they ripped the rest out of the game to make the launch date.
On the other hand, that's an utterly asinine comment to have made (the one you quote, not yours).
It's a kdawson quote... what more can you expect?
Right... because a judge will find that offer, consideration, and acceptance of a contract took place between a webserver and a bot? The court case you cite is irrelevant to an automated program that has no understanding and cannot accept conditions presented online.
IT. IS. LAW!!! You need to make a copy of a copyrighted work to view that work on the internet. You cannot make a copy unless you have permission. robots.txt gives that permission BY CONVENTION on the internet.
Let me guess: you check robots.txt every time you browse to a new website and if that website has no robots.txt, you leave because you don't have permission to view anything?
Unlike the much more memorable Skid Row that I know very well from the Amiga-scene.
It also does not refer to your underwear.
What do you know... we actually use that at work. Indirectly, anyways, through OpenBSD's gzipped mirror in conjunction with spamd.
Thanks for the work you put into it! Because of spamd (and lists like yours, Beck's traplist, and so on) we're wasting over 1100 hours of spammer time every day.
I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!