Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#21

Post by wereHamster »

kuschku wrote: post #12
schwa571 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer your question, because I don't know the answer. However, I would recommend against relying on wereHamster's apparent mis-information... unless Google's policies are different in the jurisdiction that wereHamster is familiar with, in which case I apologize.

I think wereHamster’s text was satire, but the idea was repeated by many others: Anything related to your job you do is owned by Google. You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

What does it tell us if people don't recognise that as satire? Is it so close to reality to think that Google could claim rights on our cookie recipes?

And if you really have to ask if such a clause applies to you, you haven't properly read your contract and/or you don't know your rights. People, please educate yourselves, don't let large corporations, even if they claim not to be evil, violate your rights.

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#22

Post by batbomb »

brunoqc wrote: post #18
yegle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a project whose author is a Googler thus Google has the copyright and all the CLA stuff. However Google is not directly involved in the project, in the sense of having employees solely work on the project and have an OKR on this project, or roadmap whatsoever. Think about this: someone work for Google wrote a software and Google is kind enough to open source it. Disclaimer: I work for Google but my interpreta…

Does Google also own code that you write in your spare time at home?

Usually (close to) universal answer is something like is: "If you've used any employing entity resources, even incidentally, your employing entity owns it, especially if the project is directly related to the business"

Some places will attempt to assert more ownership and some will not.

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#23

Post by jsolson »

kuschku wrote: post #12
schwa571 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer your question, because I don't know the answer. However, I would recommend against relying on wereHamster's apparent mis-information... unless Google's policies are different in the jurisdiction that wereHamster is familiar with, in which case I apologize.

I think wereHamster’s text was satire, but the idea was repeated by many others: Anything related to your job you do is owned by Google. You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

> You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

As a Googler I suspect you could, you'd just need permission (possibly per patch).

Googlers contribute to lots of open source projects. Google itself is fairly liberal in terms of what it's willing to share outside. Exceptions tend to be product specific code (you probably couldn't contribute the Hangouts UI and front-end code), particular technologies that are distinct competitive advantages (search ranking, etc.), or things that are Google specific (I work on Google Compute Engine -- there's a fair amount of code that is specific to Google's infrastructure).

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#24

Post by kuschku »

wereHamster wrote: post #21
kuschku wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think wereHamster’s text was satire, but the idea was repeated by many others: Anything related to your job you do is owned by Google. You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

What does it tell us if people don't recognise that as satire? Is it so close to reality to think that Google could claim rights on our cookie recipes? And if you really have to ask if such a clause applies to you, you haven't properly read your contract and/or you don't know your rights. People, please educate yourselves, don't let large corporations, even if they claim not to be evil, violate your rights.

> And if you really have to ask if such a clause applies to you, you haven't properly read your contract and/or you don't know your rights.

I’m not working at Google, but I’m a compsci student in Germany, and obviously interested in the situation in the job market.

> What does it tell us if people don't recognise that as satire? Is it so close to reality to think that Google could claim rights on our cookie recipes?

It’s certainly possible that some might expect that – from the standpoint of someone who only heard of German law, for example, a large part of US employment laws would sound just as crazy as being able to have the copyright of your employee’s cookie recipes.

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#25

Post by rixed »

brunoqc wrote: post #18
yegle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a project whose author is a Googler thus Google has the copyright and all the CLA stuff. However Google is not directly involved in the project, in the sense of having employees solely work on the project and have an OKR on this project, or roadmap whatsoever. Think about this: someone work for Google wrote a software and Google is kind enough to open source it. Disclaimer: I work for Google but my interpreta…

Does Google also own code that you write in your spare time at home?

They pretend to, as would many companies if asked. I don't know how that would hold in court though. They also, for instance, pretend it's illegal to discuss your salary while the opposite seams to be true, so...

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#26

Post by rixed »

Rate limiting looks outdated. Suppose you can spawn new servers (and turn down unused ones) fast enough to react to demand, and have a good LB that sends the traffic where you have capacity, then you do not need to limit anything until you reach full capacity, in which case you probably want to degrade (by query class and/or client class) rather than limit anyway.

Rate limiting is an inefficient way to distribute a service, that makes sense only if you preallocate your resources and have queries with predictable cost. Let's use this technique only as a bug-prevention tool not for resource economy, as organised scarcity is likely as inefficient for the data center as it is for the distribution of goods :)

Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting

#27

Post by greenleafjacob »

rixed wrote: post #26

Rate limiting looks outdated. Suppose you can spawn new servers (and turn down unused ones) fast enough to react to demand, and have a good LB that sends the traffic where you have capacity, then you do not need to limit anything until you reach full capacity, in which case you probably want to degrade (by query class and/or client class) rather than limit anyway. Rate limiting is an inefficient way to distribute a s…

If you degrade by client or query class then in the case of just one class of query or one class of client you would have an unfair distribution, because one client could consume many resources and others would be limited to whatever's available on the margins.

I would like to see an adaptive system that, when resources are scarce, pushes towards a more equitable distribution.

Post reply on HN