While your basic point I believe is correct your information is dreadfully dated. The original visual studio.Net you had a point with. all versions since the release of.Net 2.0 have been solid though and every programmer I've encountered loves it.
Also I'm not sure how you can say MS has stagnated development for IIS. IIS 7 is such an improvement that I can serve twice as much content as I could with IIS 6 on the same hardware. Combined with the fact that IIS has since the time of IIS5 beaten Apache at dynamic data driven web serving and I begin to wonder where you get your information. Static serving Apache has always been king however so it depends on the type of site you're building and deploying. Historically static sites accounted for the vast majority which is why Apache has such market share now. Of course with PHP5 and the right platform I'd say it's quite competitive these days especially since adding additional hardware to help with the serving is cheap and easy although getting PHP apps to talk across load balanced machines is quite a bit more difficult than getting IIS clusters to cooperate.
The real difference between most closed-source and open source software is usability like it or not. That doesn't mean that all closed-source apps are usable and not all open source apps are unusable. You list Apache as a beacon of user satisfaction when I can say pretty confidently that most people go with it because most people in the past have gone for it. It's cheap to deploy but quite difficult to setup any advanced features without a lot of man page reading. Yeah, it'll get you up and running with basic functionality fast but so will any web server for the most part. Interoperability is a mess as well. I tried to deploy PHP 5.3 to a CentOS 5.3 install. Yep, had to compile from source and the whole thing was a much bigger pain in the ass than installing the.Net framework ever was.
Feature sets are quite the joke as well as the small tools philosophy has a strong hold in the open source community and for good reason. Lots of simple apps working together results in a very stable platform but means that individual packages don't have much functionality. The trade off is that it will be harder to implement because there will be more pieces to implement. From my perspective it's worth the extra effort but I recognize that instead of using one tool like Exchange I have to use many tools including Zimbra which only recently became competitive.
Even look at Asterisk, an app that I actually like because I set it up and go and it doesn't do anything squirrelly unless I do something squirrelly. It however is a lot harder to administer than our old closed-source extensive Televantage softPBX. Of course once you learn Asterisk you realize how much more powerful and extensible it is and in an enterprise environment like I run that is very much a necessity especially once you learn the config files that you have to modify and create your templates.
Bottom line is that both you and the parent are right with a lot of changing attitudes I think more businesses are taking Linux and open-source projects much more seriously simply from a licensing perspective and too many companies have made their licensing schemes too complicated. Oracle, Microsoft, VMWare, I'm looking at all of you! As closed-source companies make it harder to implement through fine print more people will move into the light and realize that there is another way.
I don't think you understood what I was saying about EMC. There is a lot more involved than you make it out to be given that you have to use software from one company to provision the SAN, software from another to zone and authenticate it and then yet another for monitoring it all.
With NetApp everything can be done from one simple web console which doesn't require you to spend a ridiculous amount of money just to get up and running as it's up and running automatically.
I had EMC storage, now I have NetApp storage and life is good. HP gear has come a long way too but they still like lots of pieces to do what should be a job as simple as you describe.
I may have been but ZFS is supported by NetApp. I had the same conversation with the guys at NetApp because of the litigation but NetApp directly supports ZFS.
Support Summary here I'm afraid all of my best documentation is behind the NOW site which requires you to buy NetApp gear before they give you access to it. Also, last I heard NetApp lost the lawsuit to Sun.
Last bit if you think NetApp is just a giant NAS you're dead wrong. It has NAS capabilities along with lun support for iSCSI or FCP but it also does much more than that with direct DFS support on the Windows side at least. A_SIS is an amazing product as well when you have lots of duplicate data. They are on top of the storage heap for a reason.
You should definitely take another look at 3ware then. I felt the same way about Adaptec and to a point I still do, they are relatively safe but tend to lack any industry leadership. 3ware has some impressive software that comes with their controllers meant to support the single RAID deployment up to centrally managing many servers. You would probably have to fall back to something like Nagios or MOM once you reach a certain threshold though.
While I've had no issues with Adaptec or 3ware beyond batteries for write-caching going bad I've found that the 3wares perform much better and the web-based management tools make remote notification a snap. Dynamic RAID volumes and one of the first accessible releases of RAID 6 made me like 3ware a lot. They had products out in an affordable price range longer before Adaptec did.
In short, 3ware has changed a lot from the time where I said the same thing as you. It is no longer a wanna-be controller.
Of course you won't find much 3ware in my NetApp deployment. EMC can't seem to get their act together as they just partner with other companies to provide you with a suite of products that don't integrate very well. NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
The thing I don't really get is how 50,000 computers can shut down your site.
I can't imagine the FTC is only hosted by one or two servers. Of course the important number was not mentioned which is how much bandwidth was being put into the DDoS. That would determine if it's just bad website administration not surviving something that all of us experience from time to time. Of course the other matter is why you would attack a public-facing site for the FTC or department of transportation. This isn't going to impact operations and makes no statement about your ability to impact hardened targets. Sounds to me like the firewalls they chose weren't doing their job or they were foolish enough to place web-servers directly on the Internet.
It's amazing the important steps people skip when building a site to save a few bucks. Connectivity gear is never where you want to skimp!
It has much of this functionality built-in so yes. It also has third party plug-ins similar to Grease-monkey.
One of the main reasons IE8 breaks so much in terms of compatibility and IE7 wasn't much different was purely for the fact that it is shipped in a much more secure state.
IE8 is a lot safer than previous versions of IE but as I said, it may be too late for people jumping ship since even Firefox's increased share hasn't seen it crumble to security problems like IE was running into when Firefox first came on the scene. Of course there are starting to be Firefox specific exploits in the wild so that may end up slowing its progress.
You install IE8 which has pretty much all of the same features as Firefox.
Of course it pretty much came way too late so the cat may be out of the bag since so many people don't want to upgrade IE6 which will cause application compatibility problems. This means that web browsing must be done with an alternative browser like firefox since running IE6 and IE8 on the same machine is problematic for the majority.
This is probably the first legitimate point I've seen in response to this. This is why I abandoned VMWare and went with Xen Server now that it is free.
The mal-ware argument is pretty moot in my mind as a properly administered network doesn't have a real problem with it. I haven't have a virus outbreak here beyond a fellow admin getting his own box owned in the five years I've been managing this network and our users are as clue-less as they come. Yes, the basic cost of AV software should get factored into TCO but malware clean-up? Even if we were having a problem with it, drive images make redeploying a box take a matter of minutes and those are minutes I don't even have to spend at the machine since I can do it all remotely with just a few clicks. The cost there would be the users lost productivity but that is why I'm moving into a VDI type environment for my end-users. Then downtime would negligible.
Honestly, all of the things you do to protect yourself from hardware failure often also protect you from virus damage so the cost is going to be the same regardless of platform of choice. I've got my automation in both Linux and Windows so both worlds are good. Now if only Apple played nicer. I basically have to buy completely separate tools to automate them which bugs the hell out of me.
I think he means that it won't even display properly. I printed a Southwest boarding pass with my Ubuntu setup and the PDF looked fine on my screen but when I printed it printed everything but my seating number which was A12 no less!
I copied the PDF to a Windows box and it printed just fine. The little things like that the parent was referring to. This is common with Ubuntu though. I would not say Ubuntu is a good platform for desktop deployment in a company though. SUSE is a better choice there as their software packages are designed to support corporate users unlike the hobbiests that Ubuntu targets. I've never understood the people that think Ubuntu is easy. I can hack my way around it just fine but when a kernel update suddenly stopped my netbook from being able to use wired networking things got dicey real fast! In the end I had to get a custom compiled kernel until 9.04 came out addressing the issue for real. Ubuntu releases are all about using the public to test. I like it because it gives me relatively easy access to the latest software tools even though that access means some of those tools won't work quite right until the next point release.
While yes, a certain amount of money should be allocated for things like AV software I have to wonder why so many companies are having such problems. To be honest, I've spent 20 minutes in 5 years cleaning up viruses on my network and most of that was because a fellow admin no less decided that he needed to install a codec from an untrusted website to watch a stupid video.
Of course I can't protect my network from people with the same level of access as I but the rest don't have any issues and a few are even the type to not only reply to spam but actually buy stuff!
Seems to me the issue is less about what OS I'm running on the back-end or the front-end and more about proper setup. While I do employ both Linux and Windows in my network playing to both of their strengths. If I have additional time to implement a project that I can accomplish on Linux then the odds are I will since I won't have to pay licensing fees but when new deployments are in crunch-time I'll often lean on Windows as I can setup new technologies and software faster in Windows environments due to differences in philosophies.
I was setting up PHP 5.3 on a CentOS box today and I can tell you that it's not friendly given that it hasn't hit the repositories yet. In fact the latest version from the official CentOS repository is PHP 5.1! There are a number of dependencies to resolve especially surrounding the php-mysql extensions. With Linux you tend to set and forget only returning to do updates. Setting takes longer than with Windows but the added time of reboots with Windows means that over the long term Linux will come out ahead which is why I run Oracle on Linux.
The modern world is wonderful though since I have virtualized most of my infrastructure where it makes sense so both Windows and Linux end up taking the same amounts of time to do anything since the software tends to do most of the work for me.
Except that a 30 cent RFID doesn't add much to the total cost of cattle. Combined that with the fact that buying in quantities of a thousand you can even pay significantly less. RFID readers aren't that expensive either as a small farm would only need one or two readers. In the grand scheme of things this would only be expensive to implement if it was implemented extremely poorly but the argument isn't based on that presumption, it's based on the cost factor.
You're right, the government run part probably does indicate old hardware as they love to set and forget and you're definitely right about ISPs not going back once something is working.
Regardless SSH, VPN or any encrypted connection should be employed when routing through networks you don't control so the whole argument I posed was moot.
If the servers are Windows servers then I would recommend DFS as it comes with 2k3 R2 with remote differential compression which is what makes rsync so powerful. Of course older Windows has older DFS which will still replicate the data automatically doing integrity checking as it goes.
Of course if you don't have R2 or newer then I would recommend rsync.
In both scenarios I still recommend a VPN to encapsulate everything.
What microwave connections out there don't use strong encryption?
Our 70meg microwave backup link sure the hell is. You're not dealing with 802.11 here in most cases so even receiving the signal is difficult given that they are usually in the high frequency ranges using directional antenna. It's hard to sit in the middle of the beam without causing some severe disruption and all of that is moot given TACACS and peering authentication which all equipment I've ever encountered supported although I'll grant it possible its not used. Given how trivial it is to setup once you have the infrastructure I can't imagine an ISP leaving that step out though
That is not true, the copyright owner can license as many people as he or she wants to distribute their work. It's just in most situations a recording artist will grant exclusive rights to a record label hopefully to get a better deal since exclusive licensing is worth more.
Think of it this way, if I write software using a closed license like Microsoft does I may wish to license the code to both IBM and Novell so that they can use it too. A lot of this muddied the waters for the SCO debacle.
CDNs like Akamai, Limelight, or Highwinds are more suited for this than the "cloud." as they require very little in the way of management unlike cloud integration which can be a huge pain in the ass especially if you're trying to maintain security.
Most cloud environments that aren't ridiculous in size like Amazon's wouldn't be able to handle the bandwidth and if they could it would be quite expensive and given that a current event caused the spike you will be hard pressed to gain additional advertising dollars to cover the bandwidth bill. So you go with a CDN where it's pennies for gigs of transfer and away you go.
Given Apple's history when Jobs was not at the helm it's understandable that so many people would take an interest in his health. Again, given history, it's a safe bet Apple will do well while controlled by Jobs and will do quite poorly should he remove himself. Many people are aware of the past.
Personally I'm inclined to agree with you as I don't care about Apple, I should say, I don't like Apple for many of the same reasons I don't like Sony and have issues with Microsoft. Anti-competitive, litigious, and a pain to integrate. I'm not sure where the law stands on a publicly traded company when it comes to the health of it's board members though. Of course investors can do use any means to help themselves justify their investments so while Jobs may not be legally obligated to share the information it would have been a good idea as investors were being mislead. If management is changing the board is supposed to be notified and if his condition worsened and he actually died then investors may have had a valid claim that they were mislead. Of course that didn't happen and I'm sure he'll be fine and Apple will continue on like it has.
I live less than ten minutes from over one hundred restaurants, at least a dozen night clubs, the airport, and within 15 minutes from major highways like the 10 or the 60 although I'm less than a quarter mile from the 101.
Of course I'm a half hour away from a lake as well which is quite fun, I'm 40 minutes from a place I can go tubing down the salt river. I'd say there's a reason it was voted "Most Livable City." Of course that was a while ago but I think in many ways it's still true.
There are also a ridiculous number of tech companies in the area like GoDaddy, IO Data, OneNeck, Sunguard, Netapp, EMC, Cisco, and the list really keeps going.
Re:I stopped reading the summary
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I didn't use the term mirror. If I did then you would have a point, except that I didn't. Versioning is very important and why you have multiple tiers of storage.
As for the second RAID, it is located offsite along with the tape library so yes, in fact, it is very solid and would take quite a lot of effort to destroy any data.
You mean those crazy girls? No thanks! Of course I'm a bit jaded considering I had a girlfriend that went to GSU who was anorexic but really wanted to have a kid! Needless to say that relationship didn't last too long although the saying is true, crazy in the head, crazy in bed! Woohoo! For like a week
Coming from the north east, Vermont specifically I can understand the thought process behind considering $1500/month for 1000 sq ft to be a good deal.
Most people that live there have no idea how cheap housing is in the south west. Here in Scottsdale, AZ for instance I have a 2400sq ft house with a pool for $1200/month and I'm paying above the average right now! So yeah, gimme three months of the suck weather for 9 months of fantastic weather. I remember the ole saying from Vermont. 9 months of winter, 3 months of bad skiing.
Of course all this is combined with the fact that bandwidth is hella cheap here and Peoria even has a pilot program from broadband over powerlines. Of course fiber is available in a great number of homes here in the valley now as well which is even more fantastic.
I'll drive four hours to spend a weekend in San Diego on the beach rather than choose to live close to it where everything is expensive. Of course 4 hours also puts me in Rocky Point, Mexico which is a fun spot too, so any given weekend I can feel like I'm taking a vacation which is something I never felt living in Vermont.
I see that as a good method for tier 2 storage and definitely for backup tier storage.
I wouldn't want primary storage to use that method for obvious reasons but I haven't really played enough with alternatives to Raid 6 so you've given me something to try! Thanks
I'll disagree strongly with you as a 100TB library costs about 70k versus a 60TB proper SAN which will run 100k. Both will provide me with what I need in terms of backup but they both have their drawbacks. The library will take me weeks to recover from while the SAN can keep me up and running with zero down-time. It matters if your company depends on being online.
Of course for the home, I'm a fan of backup to an online service as restore time doesn't really matter and then you don't have to maintain separate gear.
Re:I stopped reading the summary
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
Realistically its a question most people should ask themselves because it can make a big difference in the cost of doing your backup and also dramatically impacts the amount of time it takes to get back up and running.
Disaster recovery is very much individual to the company. Our company places a high emphasis on survivability so we naturally have a lot of redundancy online, near-line, or offline with variable policies based on the nature of the content. Financial documents have to stay around longer than temporary internet files for instance.
Re:I stopped reading the summary
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Talk about being old-fashioned. Sorry but you're wrong and all the disk-to-disk backup manufacturers would like to have a word with you.
In all seriousness I'm sure nobody believe you can't have a RAID off-site that is online running snapshots periodically. This protects you from fire, viruses, are equipment failure and at least in my case, allows for business continuity which is pretty important these days.
Of course I do go one further and backup to a 100TB library but thats largely because I don't want to maintain that much online capacity if I don't have to especially since I already had to purchase it once for my main SAN.
Use modern technology, you'll find it much more friendly. Most modern network storage strategies work out great. ZFS does snapshotting making it easy to deploy on small scales. Windows only? Well that's no problem either since you have Volume shadow copy and DFS based on whatever schedule you would like.
I go one further with DFS/VSC and use NetApp snapshotting on the back-end which mirrors the snapshot to another array at another building. Works out great and the only maintenance is the occasional swap out of hard drives when the RAID controllers preemptively fail the drive because they detect abnormalities that will lead to failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Like mid-west boobies!
While your basic point I believe is correct your information is dreadfully dated. The original visual studio .Net you had a point with. all versions since the release of .Net 2.0 have been solid though and every programmer I've encountered loves it.
Also I'm not sure how you can say MS has stagnated development for IIS. IIS 7 is such an improvement that I can serve twice as much content as I could with IIS 6 on the same hardware. Combined with the fact that IIS has since the time of IIS5 beaten Apache at dynamic data driven web serving and I begin to wonder where you get your information. Static serving Apache has always been king however so it depends on the type of site you're building and deploying. Historically static sites accounted for the vast majority which is why Apache has such market share now. Of course with PHP5 and the right platform I'd say it's quite competitive these days especially since adding additional hardware to help with the serving is cheap and easy although getting PHP apps to talk across load balanced machines is quite a bit more difficult than getting IIS clusters to cooperate.
The real difference between most closed-source and open source software is usability like it or not. That doesn't mean that all closed-source apps are usable and not all open source apps are unusable. You list Apache as a beacon of user satisfaction when I can say pretty confidently that most people go with it because most people in the past have gone for it. It's cheap to deploy but quite difficult to setup any advanced features without a lot of man page reading. Yeah, it'll get you up and running with basic functionality fast but so will any web server for the most part. Interoperability is a mess as well. I tried to deploy PHP 5.3 to a CentOS 5.3 install. Yep, had to compile from source and the whole thing was a much bigger pain in the ass than installing the .Net framework ever was.
Feature sets are quite the joke as well as the small tools philosophy has a strong hold in the open source community and for good reason. Lots of simple apps working together results in a very stable platform but means that individual packages don't have much functionality. The trade off is that it will be harder to implement because there will be more pieces to implement. From my perspective it's worth the extra effort but I recognize that instead of using one tool like Exchange I have to use many tools including Zimbra which only recently became competitive.
Even look at Asterisk, an app that I actually like because I set it up and go and it doesn't do anything squirrelly unless I do something squirrelly. It however is a lot harder to administer than our old closed-source extensive Televantage softPBX. Of course once you learn Asterisk you realize how much more powerful and extensible it is and in an enterprise environment like I run that is very much a necessity especially once you learn the config files that you have to modify and create your templates.
Bottom line is that both you and the parent are right with a lot of changing attitudes I think more businesses are taking Linux and open-source projects much more seriously simply from a licensing perspective and too many companies have made their licensing schemes too complicated. Oracle, Microsoft, VMWare, I'm looking at all of you! As closed-source companies make it harder to implement through fine print more people will move into the light and realize that there is another way.
I don't think you understood what I was saying about EMC. There is a lot more involved than you make it out to be given that you have to use software from one company to provision the SAN, software from another to zone and authenticate it and then yet another for monitoring it all.
With NetApp everything can be done from one simple web console which doesn't require you to spend a ridiculous amount of money just to get up and running as it's up and running automatically.
I had EMC storage, now I have NetApp storage and life is good. HP gear has come a long way too but they still like lots of pieces to do what should be a job as simple as you describe.
I may have been but ZFS is supported by NetApp. I had the same conversation with the guys at NetApp because of the litigation but NetApp directly supports ZFS.
Support Summary here I'm afraid all of my best documentation is behind the NOW site which requires you to buy NetApp gear before they give you access to it. Also, last I heard NetApp lost the lawsuit to Sun.
Last bit if you think NetApp is just a giant NAS you're dead wrong. It has NAS capabilities along with lun support for iSCSI or FCP but it also does much more than that with direct DFS support on the Windows side at least. A_SIS is an amazing product as well when you have lots of duplicate data. They are on top of the storage heap for a reason.
You should definitely take another look at 3ware then. I felt the same way about Adaptec and to a point I still do, they are relatively safe but tend to lack any industry leadership. 3ware has some impressive software that comes with their controllers meant to support the single RAID deployment up to centrally managing many servers. You would probably have to fall back to something like Nagios or MOM once you reach a certain threshold though.
While I've had no issues with Adaptec or 3ware beyond batteries for write-caching going bad I've found that the 3wares perform much better and the web-based management tools make remote notification a snap. Dynamic RAID volumes and one of the first accessible releases of RAID 6 made me like 3ware a lot. They had products out in an affordable price range longer before Adaptec did.
In short, 3ware has changed a lot from the time where I said the same thing as you. It is no longer a wanna-be controller.
Of course you won't find much 3ware in my NetApp deployment. EMC can't seem to get their act together as they just partner with other companies to provide you with a suite of products that don't integrate very well. NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
The thing I don't really get is how 50,000 computers can shut down your site.
I can't imagine the FTC is only hosted by one or two servers. Of course the important number was not mentioned which is how much bandwidth was being put into the DDoS. That would determine if it's just bad website administration not surviving something that all of us experience from time to time. Of course the other matter is why you would attack a public-facing site for the FTC or department of transportation. This isn't going to impact operations and makes no statement about your ability to impact hardened targets. Sounds to me like the firewalls they chose weren't doing their job or they were foolish enough to place web-servers directly on the Internet.
It's amazing the important steps people skip when building a site to save a few bucks. Connectivity gear is never where you want to skimp!
It has much of this functionality built-in so yes. It also has third party plug-ins similar to Grease-monkey.
One of the main reasons IE8 breaks so much in terms of compatibility and IE7 wasn't much different was purely for the fact that it is shipped in a much more secure state.
IE8 is a lot safer than previous versions of IE but as I said, it may be too late for people jumping ship since even Firefox's increased share hasn't seen it crumble to security problems like IE was running into when Firefox first came on the scene. Of course there are starting to be Firefox specific exploits in the wild so that may end up slowing its progress.
You install IE8 which has pretty much all of the same features as Firefox.
Of course it pretty much came way too late so the cat may be out of the bag since so many people don't want to upgrade IE6 which will cause application compatibility problems. This means that web browsing must be done with an alternative browser like firefox since running IE6 and IE8 on the same machine is problematic for the majority.
This is probably the first legitimate point I've seen in response to this. This is why I abandoned VMWare and went with Xen Server now that it is free.
The mal-ware argument is pretty moot in my mind as a properly administered network doesn't have a real problem with it. I haven't have a virus outbreak here beyond a fellow admin getting his own box owned in the five years I've been managing this network and our users are as clue-less as they come. Yes, the basic cost of AV software should get factored into TCO but malware clean-up? Even if we were having a problem with it, drive images make redeploying a box take a matter of minutes and those are minutes I don't even have to spend at the machine since I can do it all remotely with just a few clicks. The cost there would be the users lost productivity but that is why I'm moving into a VDI type environment for my end-users. Then downtime would negligible.
Honestly, all of the things you do to protect yourself from hardware failure often also protect you from virus damage so the cost is going to be the same regardless of platform of choice. I've got my automation in both Linux and Windows so both worlds are good. Now if only Apple played nicer. I basically have to buy completely separate tools to automate them which bugs the hell out of me.
I think he means that it won't even display properly. I printed a Southwest boarding pass with my Ubuntu setup and the PDF looked fine on my screen but when I printed it printed everything but my seating number which was A12 no less!
I copied the PDF to a Windows box and it printed just fine. The little things like that the parent was referring to. This is common with Ubuntu though. I would not say Ubuntu is a good platform for desktop deployment in a company though. SUSE is a better choice there as their software packages are designed to support corporate users unlike the hobbiests that Ubuntu targets. I've never understood the people that think Ubuntu is easy. I can hack my way around it just fine but when a kernel update suddenly stopped my netbook from being able to use wired networking things got dicey real fast! In the end I had to get a custom compiled kernel until 9.04 came out addressing the issue for real. Ubuntu releases are all about using the public to test. I like it because it gives me relatively easy access to the latest software tools even though that access means some of those tools won't work quite right until the next point release.
While yes, a certain amount of money should be allocated for things like AV software I have to wonder why so many companies are having such problems. To be honest, I've spent 20 minutes in 5 years cleaning up viruses on my network and most of that was because a fellow admin no less decided that he needed to install a codec from an untrusted website to watch a stupid video.
Of course I can't protect my network from people with the same level of access as I but the rest don't have any issues and a few are even the type to not only reply to spam but actually buy stuff!
Seems to me the issue is less about what OS I'm running on the back-end or the front-end and more about proper setup. While I do employ both Linux and Windows in my network playing to both of their strengths. If I have additional time to implement a project that I can accomplish on Linux then the odds are I will since I won't have to pay licensing fees but when new deployments are in crunch-time I'll often lean on Windows as I can setup new technologies and software faster in Windows environments due to differences in philosophies.
I was setting up PHP 5.3 on a CentOS box today and I can tell you that it's not friendly given that it hasn't hit the repositories yet. In fact the latest version from the official CentOS repository is PHP 5.1! There are a number of dependencies to resolve especially surrounding the php-mysql extensions. With Linux you tend to set and forget only returning to do updates. Setting takes longer than with Windows but the added time of reboots with Windows means that over the long term Linux will come out ahead which is why I run Oracle on Linux.
The modern world is wonderful though since I have virtualized most of my infrastructure where it makes sense so both Windows and Linux end up taking the same amounts of time to do anything since the software tends to do most of the work for me.
Except that a 30 cent RFID doesn't add much to the total cost of cattle. Combined that with the fact that buying in quantities of a thousand you can even pay significantly less. RFID readers aren't that expensive either as a small farm would only need one or two readers. In the grand scheme of things this would only be expensive to implement if it was implemented extremely poorly but the argument isn't based on that presumption, it's based on the cost factor.
You're right, the government run part probably does indicate old hardware as they love to set and forget and you're definitely right about ISPs not going back once something is working.
Regardless SSH, VPN or any encrypted connection should be employed when routing through networks you don't control so the whole argument I posed was moot.
If the servers are Windows servers then I would recommend DFS as it comes with 2k3 R2 with remote differential compression which is what makes rsync so powerful. Of course older Windows has older DFS which will still replicate the data automatically doing integrity checking as it goes.
Of course if you don't have R2 or newer then I would recommend rsync.
In both scenarios I still recommend a VPN to encapsulate everything.
What microwave connections out there don't use strong encryption?
Our 70meg microwave backup link sure the hell is. You're not dealing with 802.11 here in most cases so even receiving the signal is difficult given that they are usually in the high frequency ranges using directional antenna. It's hard to sit in the middle of the beam without causing some severe disruption and all of that is moot given TACACS and peering authentication which all equipment I've ever encountered supported although I'll grant it possible its not used. Given how trivial it is to setup once you have the infrastructure I can't imagine an ISP leaving that step out though
That is not true, the copyright owner can license as many people as he or she wants to distribute their work. It's just in most situations a recording artist will grant exclusive rights to a record label hopefully to get a better deal since exclusive licensing is worth more.
Think of it this way, if I write software using a closed license like Microsoft does I may wish to license the code to both IBM and Novell so that they can use it too. A lot of this muddied the waters for the SCO debacle.
CDNs like Akamai, Limelight, or Highwinds are more suited for this than the "cloud." as they require very little in the way of management unlike cloud integration which can be a huge pain in the ass especially if you're trying to maintain security.
Most cloud environments that aren't ridiculous in size like Amazon's wouldn't be able to handle the bandwidth and if they could it would be quite expensive and given that a current event caused the spike you will be hard pressed to gain additional advertising dollars to cover the bandwidth bill. So you go with a CDN where it's pennies for gigs of transfer and away you go.
Given Apple's history when Jobs was not at the helm it's understandable that so many people would take an interest in his health. Again, given history, it's a safe bet Apple will do well while controlled by Jobs and will do quite poorly should he remove himself. Many people are aware of the past.
Personally I'm inclined to agree with you as I don't care about Apple, I should say, I don't like Apple for many of the same reasons I don't like Sony and have issues with Microsoft. Anti-competitive, litigious, and a pain to integrate. I'm not sure where the law stands on a publicly traded company when it comes to the health of it's board members though. Of course investors can do use any means to help themselves justify their investments so while Jobs may not be legally obligated to share the information it would have been a good idea as investors were being mislead. If management is changing the board is supposed to be notified and if his condition worsened and he actually died then investors may have had a valid claim that they were mislead. Of course that didn't happen and I'm sure he'll be fine and Apple will continue on like it has.
I live less than ten minutes from over one hundred restaurants, at least a dozen night clubs, the airport, and within 15 minutes from major highways like the 10 or the 60 although I'm less than a quarter mile from the 101.
Of course I'm a half hour away from a lake as well which is quite fun, I'm 40 minutes from a place I can go tubing down the salt river. I'd say there's a reason it was voted "Most Livable City." Of course that was a while ago but I think in many ways it's still true.
There are also a ridiculous number of tech companies in the area like GoDaddy, IO Data, OneNeck, Sunguard, Netapp, EMC, Cisco, and the list really keeps going.
Sorry, I didn't use the term mirror. If I did then you would have a point, except that I didn't. Versioning is very important and why you have multiple tiers of storage.
As for the second RAID, it is located offsite along with the tape library so yes, in fact, it is very solid and would take quite a lot of effort to destroy any data.
You mean those crazy girls? No thanks! Of course I'm a bit jaded considering I had a girlfriend that went to GSU who was anorexic but really wanted to have a kid! Needless to say that relationship didn't last too long although the saying is true, crazy in the head, crazy in bed! Woohoo! For like a week
Coming from the north east, Vermont specifically I can understand the thought process behind considering $1500/month for 1000 sq ft to be a good deal.
Most people that live there have no idea how cheap housing is in the south west. Here in Scottsdale, AZ for instance I have a 2400sq ft house with a pool for $1200/month and I'm paying above the average right now! So yeah, gimme three months of the suck weather for 9 months of fantastic weather. I remember the ole saying from Vermont. 9 months of winter, 3 months of bad skiing.
Of course all this is combined with the fact that bandwidth is hella cheap here and Peoria even has a pilot program from broadband over powerlines. Of course fiber is available in a great number of homes here in the valley now as well which is even more fantastic.
I'll drive four hours to spend a weekend in San Diego on the beach rather than choose to live close to it where everything is expensive. Of course 4 hours also puts me in Rocky Point, Mexico which is a fun spot too, so any given weekend I can feel like I'm taking a vacation which is something I never felt living in Vermont.
I see that as a good method for tier 2 storage and definitely for backup tier storage.
I wouldn't want primary storage to use that method for obvious reasons but I haven't really played enough with alternatives to Raid 6 so you've given me something to try! Thanks
I'll disagree strongly with you as a 100TB library costs about 70k versus a 60TB proper SAN which will run 100k. Both will provide me with what I need in terms of backup but they both have their drawbacks. The library will take me weeks to recover from while the SAN can keep me up and running with zero down-time. It matters if your company depends on being online.
Of course for the home, I'm a fan of backup to an online service as restore time doesn't really matter and then you don't have to maintain separate gear.
Realistically its a question most people should ask themselves because it can make a big difference in the cost of doing your backup and also dramatically impacts the amount of time it takes to get back up and running.
Disaster recovery is very much individual to the company. Our company places a high emphasis on survivability so we naturally have a lot of redundancy online, near-line, or offline with variable policies based on the nature of the content. Financial documents have to stay around longer than temporary internet files for instance.
Talk about being old-fashioned. Sorry but you're wrong and all the disk-to-disk backup manufacturers would like to have a word with you.
In all seriousness I'm sure nobody believe you can't have a RAID off-site that is online running snapshots periodically. This protects you from fire, viruses, are equipment failure and at least in my case, allows for business continuity which is pretty important these days.
Of course I do go one further and backup to a 100TB library but thats largely because I don't want to maintain that much online capacity if I don't have to especially since I already had to purchase it once for my main SAN.
Use modern technology, you'll find it much more friendly. Most modern network storage strategies work out great. ZFS does snapshotting making it easy to deploy on small scales. Windows only? Well that's no problem either since you have Volume shadow copy and DFS based on whatever schedule you would like.
I go one further with DFS/VSC and use NetApp snapshotting on the back-end which mirrors the snapshot to another array at another building. Works out great and the only maintenance is the occasional swap out of hard drives when the RAID controllers preemptively fail the drive because they detect abnormalities that will lead to failure.