I'm sorry but I've got a total of 3 data centers and I can' tell you when where and which router/pix/switch has a problem. I do it my not only monitoring the item itself (this is what everyone should do.) but also by monitoring "through" the item in question. I monitor a specific point on the other side (or in some cases set of points) not to find out if that point is good, but to find out if the path is good. 3 things have to be monitored.
1. Local status (Am I alive)
2. Path (can I get from me to you, what is the quality of the path?)
3. End point (are you there?)
If at any time you let the number of paths and interconnects overwhelms you. Get a new job. You've lost control. Draw pictures of the network. When you have an outage start looking immediately at what you have connectivity with and what you don't. Large data centers can get complex in their interconnects. Divide it up into "blocks" verify a block and move on.
The biggest problem in a situation like this is that I'm willing to bet the techs were wasting their time trying to figure out why the network went down. Who cares why. You need to quickly assess what is down. What you can do. What you can't do. You need to know what is normal and what is not. If you don't a situation like this can happen.
The worst thing that can happen is if the network is divided into "territories." Usually in a case like this people spend more time trying to blame the other guy then they do finding the cause of the problem. Finally design. Somewhere along the line some pencil pusher decided that a single point of failure was economically feasible. The techs were willing to sheep right along, the Sr Admin was played politics and didn't rock the boat.
In the end. The techs blew it. The after action report and follow up will tell the final tale.
Noting that the most expensive coffee in the world is an Indonesian Blend that passes through the digestive track of a local monkey. I'd hardly call these beans "fresh".
1. Designs can be released before thorough testing is done meaning that potentially life threatening (or at least data threatening) errors can be introduced requiring months of waiting for a fix.
2 Now that you CPU can be on the fly re-programed it opens up a whole new world of viruses and worms.
I envision conversations with your auto dealer now. "Yes sir we understand that the cars brake system locks up randomly, but the CPU manufacturer has assured us that they will be releasing a new patch that might fix the problem in just a few months."
This is IMHO a way to introduce a high level of error acceptance into a piece of critical hardware. "Get it today! the newest Millennium Edition of the 286!"
Amen. Especially the ones you instead of holding to their ear use the loudspeaker forcing me to listen to both sides of an inane conversation. My thought is if you can punish me mentally with your loud and boorish manor I should be allowed to light a cigarette and fan the smoke you your face (I don't smoke so I can't blow it in your face.)
To get off of my horse in front of a nearly buried Statue of Liberty, crouch down in the sand and scream "Damn them all Damn them all to hell!" or words to that affect.
Seriously though it kind of kills the god created in mans image folks now doesn't it.
The user who knows what they know and knows what they don't is fine with me. I really do like the person who can handle the 98% problems. It's the individual who knows something and thinks this makes them a god that bothers me. Some occupations in the field are prone to this. Insecure Phd's and insecure developers are two examples. The first because they have a chip and the second because yes they know things from the program aspect but they don't understand that trouble shooting a network has nothing to do with troubleshooting an app and aren't secure enough to admit what they don't know.
In an app what happened is immediately obvious (retval=0 not 1) and usually points to a specific location in the code, then you need to figure out why the code produced an undesired result. Why something happened is the #1 question to ask.
In electronics/networking this is reversed. Determining what happened is the hard part. "My internet won't boot" isn't what happened. It's the result of what happened, yes, but not what happened. What happened is that when I clicked the icon for Fx, this didn't work because the log said it couldn't launch the Fx binary, this didn't work because the binary is corrupted, this happened because we had a power hit yesterday and the company doesn't have desktops on an UPS. Quite often once you find out exactly what happened. The why becomes increasingly obvious. In this case the why is a power outage. Finding out why it won't work (power outage) won't help until you know what happened.
Realize too that I know by giving an example 1000's of trolls will attack this simplified example claiming that this proves I'm wrong. So the example is given as an explanation not as a proof. The proof is left for the intelligent to ascertain and the foolish to ignore.
Got the user agent switcher plugin. Even though I'm running Ubuntu with FF2.0 I lie and tell mallmart that I'm running ie6 on windwosXP. Get in just fine. It runs just fine.
Typical lazy programming. If the ID-10-T's designing this sight had done any studying at all since about 2000 they would know you don't need to build browser specific sites if you bother to code to standards. Even IE will work.
Not one. You have to know a finite set of computers that are a Tor network. In my reading of the article it seems that without this finite set you fall victim to the 16 per 1000 that have the same skew, problem.
Without knowing as well that all systems are skewd differently you also have a problem. What if you grabbed a random set of 32, with 2 groups of 12 and one of 8 with identical skews.
Yes the information ala 'total cost of ownership' is correct. However the article puts forth this info as if these costs were unique to the 100 dollar laptop and wouldn't apply to a 600 dollar laptop. This is equivalent to saying that my car priced on the lot was 4 times the 24,000 I paid for it and goes up in cost annually at the rate of 10,000 dollars a year. (gas, oil, insurance, repairs and taxes)
Given this path of logic the faster, you sell you car the lower the cost. right? The more expensive the car is when you buy it the more money you don't loose by selling it fast. The cost of the laptop is 100 dollars. At no time do I recall them claiming that they would lower the cost of ownership, replacement and or repair. The author of the article needs to go back to school to learn on thing.
Logic no matter how meticulously applied is still false if the opening assumption is wrong.
Right now the US is in a situation where they are no longer the "majority" of the tech elite. India, China, Brazil, Souoth Korea and others are fast moving from suppliers of the US pot to being able to just say "Screw the US, we don't need them." As we move forward onto a less neutral net the end result will be nothing less than a mass exodus of cutting edge technology from the US to other countries.
The EU, China, India all provide single currency markets that are larger than the US market, if not now then very soon. So the power the US market had won't last much longer. The question is if the US throws up too many barriers to the market will the market adjust or, just move on to greener, and easier to graze, grass.
With the loss of the technical edge in market, will it also result in a loss of technology development. To we finally become a market made up of people selling things to each other.
I don't mind that the program allows me to be stupid. Big deal...... I do mind however things like drive by hacks, (via activeX) cross-site scripting (ala JavaScript) etc. But do I expect the browser to be my mommy.... NO
As for the supposed FF memory leak. That isn't the one that should affect you the most.... Cerebellum Memorus Diareatalis should.
I can copy and claim as my own the writings of the authors in e-week, business2.0 and my complimentary 3 week subscription to the wall street journal. All of which are given to me free of monetary charge.
I can copy and claim as my own the writings of the authors in e-week, business2.0 and my complimentary 3 week subscription to the wall street journal. All of which are given to me free of monetary charge.
I did watch the video 2 times even (once on HBO once on google.) The reason for them deciding that it might be possible to do was that they found an executable on the memory card. Now my question is, "Is that executable necessary for a vote to be conducted at all. If a vote can happen without the executable then Diebold is correct the program (their program) has no executable on the memory card. Meaning that the original executable found by the experts wasn't a Diebold executable, but instead it was a 3rd party program that needs to be investigated.
1. Since Diebold says they have no executables on the memory card... what happens if you remove the executable and run another "mini" election. If the election works then what they have found is not only a backdoor into the Diebold Voting Machine but also they have found a cracked machine, and a trace on the origin of the executable needs to be done by Federal Authorities.
2. Can the executable be modified to work virally on gem?, or for that matter can a virus be "installed" on the memory card surreptitiously that later transfers to gem.
The first experiment in my mind is the most crucial. As it would point to an entirely different type of smoking gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Although java centric one must include information on how to write UNmaintainable code as well. The original unmaintainable code site (AFAIK)
1. Local status (Am I alive)
2. Path (can I get from me to you, what is the quality of the path?)
3. End point (are you there?)
If at any time you let the number of paths and interconnects overwhelms you. Get a new job. You've lost control. Draw pictures of the network. When you have an outage start looking immediately at what you have connectivity with and what you don't. Large data centers can get complex in their interconnects. Divide it up into "blocks" verify a block and move on.
The biggest problem in a situation like this is that I'm willing to bet the techs were wasting their time trying to figure out why the network went down. Who cares why. You need to quickly assess what is down. What you can do. What you can't do. You need to know what is normal and what is not. If you don't a situation like this can happen.
The worst thing that can happen is if the network is divided into "territories." Usually in a case like this people spend more time trying to blame the other guy then they do finding the cause of the problem. Finally design. Somewhere along the line some pencil pusher decided that a single point of failure was economically feasible. The techs were willing to sheep right along, the Sr Admin was played politics and didn't rock the boat.
In the end. The techs blew it. The after action report and follow up will tell the final tale.
Noting that the most expensive coffee in the world is an Indonesian Blend that passes through the digestive track of a local monkey. I'd hardly call these beans "fresh".
From the IBM case, other than the RIAA style tactics of scaring the poor into submission.
I had an immediate vision of the ATM asking me what the number displayed on the card is .... and of course the card is inside the ATM at the time....
The movement to fpga style cpu's means .......
1. Designs can be released before thorough testing is done meaning that potentially life threatening (or at least data threatening) errors can be introduced requiring months of waiting for a fix.
2 Now that you CPU can be on the fly re-programed it opens up a whole new world of viruses and worms.
I envision conversations with your auto dealer now. "Yes sir we understand that the cars brake system locks up randomly, but the CPU manufacturer has assured us that they will be releasing a new patch that might fix the problem in just a few months."
This is IMHO a way to introduce a high level of error acceptance into a piece of critical hardware. "Get it today! the newest Millennium Edition of the 286!"
Amen. Especially the ones you instead of holding to their ear use the loudspeaker forcing me to listen to both sides of an inane conversation. My thought is if you can punish me mentally with your loud and boorish manor I should be allowed to light a cigarette and fan the smoke you your face (I don't smoke so I can't blow it in your face.)
To get off of my horse in front of a nearly buried Statue of Liberty, crouch down in the sand and scream "Damn them all Damn them all to hell!" or words to that affect.
Seriously though it kind of kills the god created in mans image folks now doesn't it.
The user who knows what they know and knows what they don't is fine with me. I really do like the person who can handle the 98% problems. It's the individual who knows something and thinks this makes them a god that bothers me. Some occupations in the field are prone to this. Insecure Phd's and insecure developers are two examples. The first because they have a chip and the second because yes they know things from the program aspect but they don't understand that trouble shooting a network has nothing to do with troubleshooting an app and aren't secure enough to admit what they don't know.
In an app what happened is immediately obvious (retval=0 not 1) and usually points to a specific location in the code, then you need to figure out why the code produced an undesired result. Why something happened is the #1 question to ask.
In electronics/networking this is reversed. Determining what happened is the hard part. "My internet won't boot" isn't what happened. It's the result of what happened, yes, but not what happened. What happened is that when I clicked the icon for Fx, this didn't work because the log said it couldn't launch the Fx binary, this didn't work because the binary is corrupted, this happened because we had a power hit yesterday and the company doesn't have desktops on an UPS. Quite often once you find out exactly what happened. The why becomes increasingly obvious. In this case the why is a power outage. Finding out why it won't work (power outage) won't help until you know what happened.
Realize too that I know by giving an example 1000's of trolls will attack this simplified example claiming that this proves I'm wrong. So the example is given as an explanation not as a proof. The proof is left for the intelligent to ascertain and the foolish to ignore.
Got the user agent switcher plugin. Even though I'm running Ubuntu with FF2.0 I lie and tell mallmart that I'm running ie6 on windwosXP. Get in just fine. It runs just fine.
Typical lazy programming. If the ID-10-T's designing this sight had done any studying at all since about 2000 they would know you don't need to build browser specific sites if you bother to code to standards. Even IE will work.
Pepsi?
Not one. You have to know a finite set of computers that are a Tor network. In my reading of the article it seems that without this finite set you fall victim to the 16 per 1000 that have the same skew, problem.
Without knowing as well that all systems are skewd differently you also have a problem. What if you grabbed a random set of 32, with 2 groups of 12 and one of 8 with identical skews.
Yes the information ala 'total cost of ownership' is correct. However the article puts forth this info as if these costs were unique to the 100 dollar laptop and wouldn't apply to a 600 dollar laptop. This is equivalent to saying that my car priced on the lot was 4 times the 24,000 I paid for it and goes up in cost annually at the rate of 10,000 dollars a year. (gas, oil, insurance, repairs and taxes)
Given this path of logic the faster, you sell you car the lower the cost. right? The more expensive the car is when you buy it the more money you don't loose by selling it fast. The cost of the laptop is 100 dollars. At no time do I recall them claiming that they would lower the cost of ownership, replacement and or repair. The author of the article needs to go back to school to learn on thing.
Logic no matter how meticulously applied is still false if the opening assumption is wrong.
I'm running office 97 on whine.
Right now the US is in a situation where they are no longer the "majority" of the tech elite. India, China, Brazil, Souoth Korea and others are fast moving from suppliers of the US pot to being able to just say "Screw the US, we don't need them." As we move forward onto a less neutral net the end result will be nothing less than a mass exodus of cutting edge technology from the US to other countries.
The EU, China, India all provide single currency markets that are larger than the US market, if not now then very soon. So the power the US market had won't last much longer. The question is if the US throws up too many barriers to the market will the market adjust or, just move on to greener, and easier to graze, grass.
With the loss of the technical edge in market, will it also result in a loss of technology development. To we finally become a market made up of people selling things to each other.
I don't mind that the program allows me to be stupid. Big deal...... I do mind however things like drive by hacks, (via activeX) cross-site scripting (ala JavaScript) etc. But do I expect the browser to be my mommy.... NO As for the supposed FF memory leak. That isn't the one that should affect you the most.... Cerebellum Memorus Diareatalis should.
We are even less impressed the the tech czar.....
free as in unencumbered not as in cost. So it would become "All of which are given to me unencumbered by monetary charge."
As Variety.... Or haven't they heard that print media is also on the decline.
I can copy and claim as my own the writings of the authors in e-week, business2.0 and my complimentary 3 week subscription to the wall street journal. All of which are given to me free of monetary charge.
I can copy and claim as my own the writings of the authors in e-week, business2.0 and my complimentary 3 week subscription to the wall street journal. All of which are given to me free of monetary charge.
I did watch the video 2 times even (once on HBO once on google.) The reason for them deciding that it might be possible to do was that they found an executable on the memory card. Now my question is, "Is that executable necessary for a vote to be conducted at all. If a vote can happen without the executable then Diebold is correct the program (their program) has no executable on the memory card. Meaning that the original executable found by the experts wasn't a Diebold executable, but instead it was a 3rd party program that needs to be investigated.
That's the next step right?
1. Since Diebold says they have no executables on the memory card ... what happens if you remove the executable and run another "mini" election. If the election works then what they have found is not only a backdoor into the Diebold Voting Machine but also they have found a cracked machine, and a trace on the origin of the executable needs to be done by Federal Authorities.
2. Can the executable be modified to work virally on gem?, or for that matter can a virus be "installed" on the memory card surreptitiously that later transfers to gem.
The first experiment in my mind is the most crucial. As it would point to an entirely different type of smoking gun.