Our corporate headquarters is in downtown Chicago. I love to visit there. Chicago is by far my favorite big city and the people there are some of the friendliest people I have ever met in my life. There is no way in HELL I would live there though. Those winters are stupid.
There is a huge need for people who can write good documentation. Most sysadmins are so busy keeping the systems online and provisioning new systems that they do not have the time nor inclination to do all of the documentation work that needs to be done.
Find a small project and make sure that you can deliver on it. There is a serious shortage of people who can perform decent business analysis and educate management on technology trends. As much as I hate to throw them a bone given what they are doing here, Dice.com is a decent source of consulting gigs.
We deal with highly sensitive client data. All network traffic is inspected. The employees are well aware of it because it is explicitly mentioned during new hire orientation / on boarding.
No, but the truthers do know what most everyone else knows. The government's claims that "Nobody could have seen terrorists using airplanes as weapons." was a complete load of crap.
Tom Clancy's most recent and last book (Command Authority) also predicted this. Just as one of his previous books anticipated terrorists using airplanes to attack America. (Clancy had them running it into Congress, not the WTC, but close enough).
I thought this was common knowledge. It is always prudent to renegotiate cable bills. Cable is a luxury for most of America. That is why the reps have so many options and various packages to choose from. The companies are all about customer retention. They cannot retain customers with their sub par service, so the only tool in their arsenal is to discount their offerings.
What am I not understanding though? The ISPs are upset with Cogent because Cogent is pushing more data than they are pulling. The equation is lopsided.
Netflix is trying to alleviate the issue by rolling their own CDN to cut down on the peering traffic.
Except there has never been anything close to a 1:1 relationship. There couldn't have been because even since the IDSN days the up/down ratio of what we could get was always in favor of the down. So there's never been enough traffic coming from the ISPs to even approach parity.
Do you have any data to support that? On the last mile connections, there is an imbalance between up and down. On residential versus commercial, there is definitely an imbalance between up and down. But at the highest levels, the content farms and co-located customers, I thought it was pretty even.
I am pulling these examples out of my butt in an attempt to provide some context. I have no idea who has hosting agreements with who. But if you have NBA.com on ISP1 and NFL.com on ISP2, and MLB.com on ISP3, the traffic between the two would be roughly equal. Again, probably a bad example, given the different sizes of the audiences for each, the fact that the seasons do not overlap, etc. The point that I am trying to make is that most of the major ISPs all host high traffic farms, those farms are not centralized with one specific ISP, so far the most part, there is roughly 1:1 between the various providers.
Do you have any hard data on how many people are actually purchasing high speed internet specifically for Netflix? I have not seen any data, but my gut feeling is that the number is a fraction of a percentage of people who have high speed connections. Would you agree that by and large, the majority of people viewing Netflix are people who already have high speed connections?
Right now Netflix is getting to benefit at the expense of ISPs. Do not get me wrong here, I do not like the way the ISPs are handling it and I think it is disingenuous that they are not keeping their circuits up like they should be. My issue here is that Netflix is not a good champion to use to make the case for ISPs being tightfisted when it comes to circuit maintenance.
Netflix partnered with Cogent. They could have partnered with Level3 or any other Tier1 provider and they would be in the same situation. The peering status quo has broken down. Cogent needs to pay to make up for the lop sided transfer ratio. Cogent will most likely pass that cost on to Netflix. Netflix will have to raise their prices to offset the cost hike. Until that happens, Netflix is able to provide artificially low rates to their customers at the expense of other ISPs. Bandwidth is not free so someone has to pay for it.
To use a real world example, when builders, either residential or commercial plan new communities, they have to do environmental impact studies. One of the essential components is usually a traffic study. If they are going to go for a high density development, like a massive multi-story apartment complex, most of the time they have to work out a deal with the city to widen nearby roads, install traffic lights, widen the sidewalks, and do all sorts of other things to mitigate the impact. Right now, the internet does not have the equivalent of that, and Netflix is benefiting from it.
Imagine if your neighbor turned his house / apartment into a concert venue because there were not any ordinances to prevent it. All day long, you could not find a place to park, could not have guests over because they could not park, suffered brown and black outs because the music equipment kept blowing out the local transformers, etc. How would you handle that?
Peering agreements have been the same forever. As long as there is nearly a 1:1 ratio between the providers, everything is fine. The issue comes up when one side is using more bandwidth than they are giving in return.
Netflix is breaking the long standing status quo. Last I checked, they accounted for ~30% of ALL of the traffic on the internet. Obviously that is going to skew the metrics, and that is why Netflix is trying to push their own CDN. I do not know the particulars there. IMO, if Netflix expects ISPs to pay for their CDN, they are on drugs. What they should do is run the numbers and figure out what costs more; "overage" charges from Cogent, or eating the cost of paying to deploy their CDN hardware and network links to the other Tier1 ISPs.
Are you suggesting that net neutrality should address situations like this? Are you saying that it is a good idea to have the government force a business to eat the cost of supporting someone else's business model? To me, that sounds like a big fat subsidy for Netflix at the expense of everyone else.
In your mind, where does Cogent fall on the network provider / content provider divide? They are providing network access, but they are also (as far as I know) providing the infrastructure for Netflix's CDN.
Oddly enough Netflix is running well for me on Time Warner in southern California. I am no fan of Time Warner, but House of Cards (the major hot button that people seem to be using as the yard stick for performance this week) is done buffering HD by about half way through the opening credits.
The majority of the articles that I have seen all seem to mention Verizon, with little to no mention of the other ISPs. Maybe the real issue is a fight between Verizon and Cogent? If that is the case, what is the solution? Do we recommend allowing Verizon to acquire more content producers so that they stand to benefit by pushing their content back the other way, thereby restoring the in/out ratio?
How many of those failures are due to CEO, and how many of them are due to the replacements coming after the company already peaked? Arguably, Apple peaked with Jobs because he wrung all of the innovation out of the project line. Less arguably, Microsoft definitely peaked with Windows. Everything after that was down hill. Not to defend Ballmer because the guy was miserable failure, but there was no way that even a clone of Bill Gates could have kept generating the revenue that Gates did.
Timing is everything. Jobs and Gates were in the right place, at the right time, with the right idea. Those conditions rarely come together more than once for any given company, no matter who is leading it. By the time a company has grown to the scale where it has a CEO and share holders, it has given up a lot of the flexibility and ability to innovate and take the kinds of risks that made it successful in the first place. Look at Facebook. They are trying to stay relevant through M&A now. Social networking has peaked. Now the major players are quickly absorbing the outgrowths in an attempt to stay on top.
Even if you look at a bell curve distribution of intelligence and ability, there are still plenty of people who are capable of leading projects, making rational decisions and thinking strategically. Granted, I am only at the top levels of middle management, but I have worked with enough executives at this point to realize that they spend most of their time selling shit, and networking with their colleagues. The only reason that CEOs are hard to replace, IMHO, is because of those connections. There is a small group of individuals who have formed what more or less amounts to a cartel, and they will only deal with each other. They sit on each others boards, graduate from the same schools, belong to the same country clubs, and have decided that their shit doesn't stink and that everyone else should toe their line.
They are smart people, have no doubt about it. But they are not so much more superior in terms of intelligence or skills or abilities than plenty of other people out there who are working for them.
It would distort the free market and no one would take the risk or the very hard work like 70 hour work weeks, MBAs, and other things for dozens of years without the compensation.
As someone who has put in 70 hour weeks, the answer is to hire someone else and spread the work around. If there is so much work that 70 hour weeks are required on a regular basis, that is a staffing issue that should be remedied by hiring more people, not working one person into the ground and giving them a pay bump.
The higher I get up the ladder, the more I realize that "executives" are just regular people who have slightly above average social skills. They are usually successful because they surround themselves with successful teams, most of whom make significantly less than they do. Those CEOs who are "changing the lives of millions of people" are worthless without a whole staff of 6 figure managers, and the staffs of those managers backing them up. It takes a seriously skewed ego to believe that the CEO is worth 10-100 times more than the people just beneath them.
As much as I hate Time Warner, I have to admit that they are delivering their "promised" speeds on a regular basis. Packet loss and latency sucks, but I do get the speeds they are promising. I am paying for 15mb and it goes up to there, but rarely exceeds it. Whenever it does exceed it, it gets throttled down immediately and holds steady there.
The only problem with your argument is the fine print. All of the ISPs offer the caveat of "up to" in their stated rates. Comcast will give you "up to" 8 meg.
Exactly. Even 3x at 800GB for LTO-4 is still not even half of the 5TB that the guy above was claiming.
The only where you are even going to see 3x is with highly compressible data, like pure text. In any sort of normal environment where you have a mixture of file formats, 1-1.5x is about the best I have seen. The only caveat to that is that I have not worked with LTO5 or 6 yet. We went disk based a few years ago.
I agree and until I see proof, I am calling BS. I have been working with tape backups since the mid-1990s and at best you usually get 1.5 to (maybe) 2 times compression. On LTO-4 that works out to about 1200GB per tape. It is rare to see the a tape achieve the full, vendor stated compressed figure in real world environments.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the weather?! Forget that nonsense.
Our corporate headquarters is in downtown Chicago. I love to visit there. Chicago is by far my favorite big city and the people there are some of the friendliest people I have ever met in my life. There is no way in HELL I would live there though. Those winters are stupid.
Agreed. Same thought here. Farming community. Arizona desert. Ummmm......???
For the future of how THAT is going to work out, look no further than the Central Valley in California right now.
There is a huge need for people who can write good documentation. Most sysadmins are so busy keeping the systems online and provisioning new systems that they do not have the time nor inclination to do all of the documentation work that needs to be done.
If you do go down the Microsoft path, learn PowerShell. Any admin who does not learn it will be out of a job in a couple of years.
Find a small project and make sure that you can deliver on it. There is a serious shortage of people who can perform decent business analysis and educate management on technology trends. As much as I hate to throw them a bone given what they are doing here, Dice.com is a decent source of consulting gigs.
We deal with highly sensitive client data. All network traffic is inspected. The employees are well aware of it because it is explicitly mentioned during new hire orientation / on boarding.
No, but the truthers do know what most everyone else knows. The government's claims that "Nobody could have seen terrorists using airplanes as weapons." was a complete load of crap.
Tom Clancy's most recent and last book (Command Authority) also predicted this. Just as one of his previous books anticipated terrorists using airplanes to attack America. (Clancy had them running it into Congress, not the WTC, but close enough).
I thought this was common knowledge. It is always prudent to renegotiate cable bills. Cable is a luxury for most of America. That is why the reps have so many options and various packages to choose from. The companies are all about customer retention. They cannot retain customers with their sub par service, so the only tool in their arsenal is to discount their offerings.
What is the author's beef with probiotics? There has been recent research that suggests gut bacteria directly affect the brain in positive ways.
http://neurosciencenews.com/pr...
Need teh NATz for my car!
Thanks for the lesson. Seriously.
What am I not understanding though? The ISPs are upset with Cogent because Cogent is pushing more data than they are pulling. The equation is lopsided.
Netflix is trying to alleviate the issue by rolling their own CDN to cut down on the peering traffic.
Except there has never been anything close to a 1:1 relationship. There couldn't have been because even since the IDSN days the up/down ratio of what we could get was always in favor of the down. So there's never been enough traffic coming from the ISPs to even approach parity.
Do you have any data to support that? On the last mile connections, there is an imbalance between up and down. On residential versus commercial, there is definitely an imbalance between up and down. But at the highest levels, the content farms and co-located customers, I thought it was pretty even.
I am pulling these examples out of my butt in an attempt to provide some context. I have no idea who has hosting agreements with who. But if you have NBA.com on ISP1 and NFL.com on ISP2, and MLB.com on ISP3, the traffic between the two would be roughly equal. Again, probably a bad example, given the different sizes of the audiences for each, the fact that the seasons do not overlap, etc. The point that I am trying to make is that most of the major ISPs all host high traffic farms, those farms are not centralized with one specific ISP, so far the most part, there is roughly 1:1 between the various providers.
Do you have any hard data on how many people are actually purchasing high speed internet specifically for Netflix? I have not seen any data, but my gut feeling is that the number is a fraction of a percentage of people who have high speed connections. Would you agree that by and large, the majority of people viewing Netflix are people who already have high speed connections?
Right now Netflix is getting to benefit at the expense of ISPs. Do not get me wrong here, I do not like the way the ISPs are handling it and I think it is disingenuous that they are not keeping their circuits up like they should be. My issue here is that Netflix is not a good champion to use to make the case for ISPs being tightfisted when it comes to circuit maintenance.
Netflix partnered with Cogent. They could have partnered with Level3 or any other Tier1 provider and they would be in the same situation. The peering status quo has broken down. Cogent needs to pay to make up for the lop sided transfer ratio. Cogent will most likely pass that cost on to Netflix. Netflix will have to raise their prices to offset the cost hike. Until that happens, Netflix is able to provide artificially low rates to their customers at the expense of other ISPs. Bandwidth is not free so someone has to pay for it.
To use a real world example, when builders, either residential or commercial plan new communities, they have to do environmental impact studies. One of the essential components is usually a traffic study. If they are going to go for a high density development, like a massive multi-story apartment complex, most of the time they have to work out a deal with the city to widen nearby roads, install traffic lights, widen the sidewalks, and do all sorts of other things to mitigate the impact. Right now, the internet does not have the equivalent of that, and Netflix is benefiting from it.
Imagine if your neighbor turned his house / apartment into a concert venue because there were not any ordinances to prevent it. All day long, you could not find a place to park, could not have guests over because they could not park, suffered brown and black outs because the music equipment kept blowing out the local transformers, etc. How would you handle that?
You are mixing apples and oranges.
Peering agreements have been the same forever. As long as there is nearly a 1:1 ratio between the providers, everything is fine. The issue comes up when one side is using more bandwidth than they are giving in return.
Netflix is breaking the long standing status quo. Last I checked, they accounted for ~30% of ALL of the traffic on the internet. Obviously that is going to skew the metrics, and that is why Netflix is trying to push their own CDN. I do not know the particulars there. IMO, if Netflix expects ISPs to pay for their CDN, they are on drugs. What they should do is run the numbers and figure out what costs more; "overage" charges from Cogent, or eating the cost of paying to deploy their CDN hardware and network links to the other Tier1 ISPs.
Are you suggesting that net neutrality should address situations like this? Are you saying that it is a good idea to have the government force a business to eat the cost of supporting someone else's business model? To me, that sounds like a big fat subsidy for Netflix at the expense of everyone else.
In your mind, where does Cogent fall on the network provider / content provider divide? They are providing network access, but they are also (as far as I know) providing the infrastructure for Netflix's CDN.
Oddly enough Netflix is running well for me on Time Warner in southern California. I am no fan of Time Warner, but House of Cards (the major hot button that people seem to be using as the yard stick for performance this week) is done buffering HD by about half way through the opening credits.
The majority of the articles that I have seen all seem to mention Verizon, with little to no mention of the other ISPs. Maybe the real issue is a fight between Verizon and Cogent? If that is the case, what is the solution? Do we recommend allowing Verizon to acquire more content producers so that they stand to benefit by pushing their content back the other way, thereby restoring the in/out ratio?
How many of those failures are due to CEO, and how many of them are due to the replacements coming after the company already peaked? Arguably, Apple peaked with Jobs because he wrung all of the innovation out of the project line. Less arguably, Microsoft definitely peaked with Windows. Everything after that was down hill. Not to defend Ballmer because the guy was miserable failure, but there was no way that even a clone of Bill Gates could have kept generating the revenue that Gates did.
Timing is everything. Jobs and Gates were in the right place, at the right time, with the right idea. Those conditions rarely come together more than once for any given company, no matter who is leading it. By the time a company has grown to the scale where it has a CEO and share holders, it has given up a lot of the flexibility and ability to innovate and take the kinds of risks that made it successful in the first place. Look at Facebook. They are trying to stay relevant through M&A now. Social networking has peaked. Now the major players are quickly absorbing the outgrowths in an attempt to stay on top.
Are CEOs really that hard to replace though?
Even if you look at a bell curve distribution of intelligence and ability, there are still plenty of people who are capable of leading projects, making rational decisions and thinking strategically. Granted, I am only at the top levels of middle management, but I have worked with enough executives at this point to realize that they spend most of their time selling shit, and networking with their colleagues. The only reason that CEOs are hard to replace, IMHO, is because of those connections. There is a small group of individuals who have formed what more or less amounts to a cartel, and they will only deal with each other. They sit on each others boards, graduate from the same schools, belong to the same country clubs, and have decided that their shit doesn't stink and that everyone else should toe their line.
They are smart people, have no doubt about it. But they are not so much more superior in terms of intelligence or skills or abilities than plenty of other people out there who are working for them.
It would distort the free market and no one would take the risk or the very hard work like 70 hour work weeks, MBAs, and other things for dozens of years without the compensation.
As someone who has put in 70 hour weeks, the answer is to hire someone else and spread the work around. If there is so much work that 70 hour weeks are required on a regular basis, that is a staffing issue that should be remedied by hiring more people, not working one person into the ground and giving them a pay bump.
The higher I get up the ladder, the more I realize that "executives" are just regular people who have slightly above average social skills. They are usually successful because they surround themselves with successful teams, most of whom make significantly less than they do. Those CEOs who are "changing the lives of millions of people" are worthless without a whole staff of 6 figure managers, and the staffs of those managers backing them up. It takes a seriously skewed ego to believe that the CEO is worth 10-100 times more than the people just beneath them.
Depends on the email application. In Exchange, the email is kept in a database and includes things like attachments, indexes, etc.
As much as I hate Time Warner, I have to admit that they are delivering their "promised" speeds on a regular basis. Packet loss and latency sucks, but I do get the speeds they are promising. I am paying for 15mb and it goes up to there, but rarely exceeds it. Whenever it does exceed it, it gets throttled down immediately and holds steady there.
The only problem with your argument is the fine print. All of the ISPs offer the caveat of "up to" in their stated rates. Comcast will give you "up to" 8 meg.
Read the column headers, 4th column over.
http://www.comcast.com/interne...
Exactly. Even 3x at 800GB for LTO-4 is still not even half of the 5TB that the guy above was claiming.
The only where you are even going to see 3x is with highly compressible data, like pure text. In any sort of normal environment where you have a mixture of file formats, 1-1.5x is about the best I have seen. The only caveat to that is that I have not worked with LTO5 or 6 yet. We went disk based a few years ago.
I agree and until I see proof, I am calling BS. I have been working with tape backups since the mid-1990s and at best you usually get 1.5 to (maybe) 2 times compression. On LTO-4 that works out to about 1200GB per tape. It is rare to see the a tape achieve the full, vendor stated compressed figure in real world environments.