noobface

I'd love to have a protections like this in the US. I've had the same thing happen to me at a large company. Political ranking rather than performance leads to some incredibly insular work places.

Any marketing, at all, in documentation really complicates my research.

I was already interested in the product, and I'm trying to solve a problem with it. I understand the use case. I don't need to know how this saved X company $XXX,XXX dollars per second over the past billion years.

Obscuring the meat-and-potatoes technical specifications behind phrases like, "cloud ready" and "virtualization optimized" just makes it harder to evaluate the product.

I'd really like to see these surveys

So Nvidia can do 25 users per GPU at the moment with their "hypervisor aware" VDI cards. That's first gen.

The real trick will be doing texture swaps in conjunction with compression scaling to account for changes in network latency. That shit will be fucking magic.

But even if you get this perfectly scaled, overall latency/contention will make remote gaming over WAN suck for a mass roll-out with today's broadband and thus limits the addressable market.

edit for tenses, i haven't slept in 36 hours.

Our approach to ending racism was similar, and it was effectual, but over a great period of time incorporating generations of ignorance.

However, there were individuals who managed to help end the passive acceptance of racism by taking a vested interest in changing the thinking of one individual, all without guilting them into compliance.

Exhibit A. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B24qxWPPVbM

The NAACP president of Oklahoma, Wade Watts convinced the imperial wizard of a national KKK organization to reconsider his perspective on race. Rev. Watts did not accomplish this through expressing disgust or disapproval, but through patience and empathy. Johnny Lee Carly was swayed from imperial wizard to anti-racism activist. Wade saved Johnny's progeny from harboring the same ignorance, accomplishing in a single generation what had previously taken acts of congress, violence, protest and over a hundred years of blunt disapproval.

I'm not saying Wade's approach is the only way to accomplish a means to societal change, but it can change the perspective of an individual.

The guy who was making sexist statements is ignorant, not a "fucking loser."

How do you make these situations positive for everyone?

Empathy. Empathy for all sides.

Everyone exposed to this kind of social ignorance is a victim if you dig deep enough.

In the tech world we are quick to call users idiots, each other inept, ideas retarded...

I ask for empathy.

Empathy for this offensive guy who most likely grew up intimidated by social situations. He was picked on and bullied, and never grew past it. If I ventured a guess, I'd say he's still in pain, and still not sure how to act due to years of relative social isolation. He is simply ignorant of the effect of his actions. He literally knows no other ways to relate.

Calling him names makes us no different from him, or the people who encouraged his social isolation. Do you think shaming him will convince him we're right? He'll just view us as "another bully" and continue his anti-social behavior.

Encouraging growth through understanding, not through social imposition or public shaming is how we resolve these situations positively.

Carbon offsets for personal travel? Come on.

Oh I'm not advocating serving less clients at the server or even limiting the sockets available at the server. It's purely a critique of the number of sockets per client. Not the overall number of sockets the server supports.

There's a ton to be said for per-thread connections. This author certainly recognizes the benefit of truly parallel communications, however, there are some networking considerations that might be of interest. Especially regarding the tendency to simply "open more sockets" to increase overall speed.

Most software guys I know tend to ignore or just be ignorant of how their choices affect the underlying hardware. I realize this is a brash generalization; there are some full-spectrum people out there, and I appreciate you.

That said, opening new sockets is not without diminishing returns. The sheer volume of port numbers for those sockets can lead to memory exhaustion in consumer network devices, especially when something else is running. In this respect, bit torrent is atypically aggressive.

Basic consumer routers have hard time keeping up with their internal processes when flooded with new TCP sessions for hundreds/thousands of ports. NAT tends to run slowly as memory exhaustion takes hold and many times the only option is to shorten the timeout window on connections. (Admittedly, the default settings for NAT table timeouts is ridiculous; sometimes up to 300 seconds). With long default timeouts, it's no wonder these simple MIPS systems are overwhelmed.

Count how many tabs you have open now, and consider that they all may be using the same number of ports the services you're building do. Not to mention the ad networks...etc

All I'm really trying to get across is, more ports, especially on consumer devices, does have diminishing returns despite its apparent immediate benefit.

Yes, newer routers do have better hardware. Yes, your AWS machine can handle tons of connections. But your end users may be like you, they may not know how much memory their local router has or particularly care.

I'm not advocating anything other than moderation the number of sockets you employ. I just wanted to get this out there.

Do a legit AMA or don't do one at all.

Although I'm surprised more people aren't calling him out on completely dodging the questions.

At the time ATI was 1/2 AMD's market cap. Too much of their capital got tied up in the acquisition and R&D fell off.

The overall vision is still very, very compelling (integrated FP co-processing). At the time, AMD figured it could beat Intel to the punch by buying one of the best FP companies out there. Instead they both(AMD/ATI)fell behind as merging the two companies took far more time, attention and capital than was originally anticipated.

I don't think you've been misinformed, I personally think the marketing of the 20% time idea is better than its actual implementation.

Pitching the 20% time ideas to management is kinda killing the concept. Managers aren't particularly inclined to incorporate hours into your schedule, especially if that time could be used boosting their metrics.

Their "20% time" policy has become 120% time.

Scaling these highly creative, productivity inducing policies simply doesn't scale when you reach a certain size. The teams are too large, the goals are too vague, and there's a vacuum of consistency/systematization necessary to keep predictable metrics flowing.

I love the idea for smaller, highly profitable per-employee companies, but the big guys, whether through their own ignorance or inability, can't effectively institute something like "take a month off to do whatever project you think is cool."

If this ever becomes a common use security measure, thieves will not think twice.

Good gimmick though. Very novel.

But I agree, arguing something isn't possible is pretty short-sighted, but I'd like to mention it seems he's caveated these approaches with something to the effect of "today's technology and its trajectory." So in his opinion, the tech isn't being actively developed, thereby I think it'd be appropriate to say "impossible without intervention."

2. It is likely these DSCP values are not used for prioritization over other services.

The most likely scenario in my mind: Comcast's trust boundaries could encompass a large enough portion of their CDN to simply not re-write of the DSCP values. Meaning this DSCP value may represent an internal network prioritization, but not impact the traffic delivery outside of their data centers. The traffic, because it originates within the trust boundary, retains its previously assigned DSCP value, but it does not indicate what policies are implemented in the actual delivery of the packet.

This post, while very interesting, simply cannot know with certainty that comcast is prioritizing traffic without conducting an extensive test. We're talking many gigabytes of traffic and many locations. However, this does warrant testing as the DSCP values could easily be used to implement prioritization.

Spanning Tree Protocol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol

STP as it's called, builds linear networks. Simple, single paths, through layer 2 (see: ethernet) networks. Think of spanning tree as a large state table tracking all MAC addresses on a network. If the state table realizes there a duplicate entries (ie: duplicate paths) for a single MAC address, it literally brings down the entire network to recreate path without duplicate entries.

Most managed (commercial) ethernet switches, speak the spanning tree protocol; this protocol allows synchronization of MAC tables between switches. However, by default, the vmware vswitch does not speak this protocol. This creates problems when you multi-home servers (connect a single server to multiple siwtches). The vswitch does not participate in spanning tree, and the default vswitch "load-balances" by transmitting frames from the various ports it has accessible. This, in the traditional switches' eyes, constitutes a loop in the network and can bring an entire ethernet domain down. This is a horrific scenario during which all participating hosts lose network access for 15 seconds or more, depending on the configuration (STP vs. RVSTP). If the vswitch remains active with it's default settings, the network may be down until a network engineer realizes the problem or the server is taken offline.

The reason I say "fuck spanning tree" is as a network engineer, I've taken entire data center's off-line due to a mistaken configuration on a ESX host (which I did not have visibility into at the time). This is obviously not a good way to go about production practices.

Network coordination services, like the one developed by Google, stand a good chance of replacing this antiquated protocol. Everyone in the ethernet networking world has been plagued by STP and its related quirks. I'm, for one, very happy to see its demise and hope for a future clear of such, potentially, disruptive technology with data centers.