Earlier quoted context omitted.
Testes this and it works fine. Thanks!
I don't think you said what you think you said
*tested
AWS down again?
251–257 of 257 posts
Re: AWS down again?
#252Re: AWS down again?
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't an attitude of naive hope that there wouldn't be nefarious actors leveraging the protocol; there was a different kind of people using the Internet. There's no need to design security in the system when you literally know everyone who is using it. And everyone who was using it had the same goals in mind. So, I don't disagree with the sentiment -- people today would probably do it a little bit differently; ho…
While I don't disagree, if people at the time had assumed that everyone on the network could be trusted (forever), why design the IPv4 address space to make room for 4 billion devices? Why support so many ports and concurrent connections? The two assumptions don't quite match up.
> 4 billion devices? Why support so many ports and concurrent connections? The two assumptions don't quite match up.
Because when TCP and it's predecessors were invented there were only a few computers in entire world. In initial ARPAnet there were only 4 hosts (In September 1973 there were 42 computers connected to 36 nodes)
But each computer had many users. That's why there were so many ports, because the thinking was there will be big computers with many users each running their own internet connected clients and servers.
That was true even in the beginning of 1990's, when I want to high school, I had access to Unix shared between 2000+ people.
Re: AWS down again?
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, lowest DO is $5 per month. Not even Vultr is that low.
Learn to use search engines and translators, if you stop at Vultr you're BARELY scratching the surface.
I think there is also a level of trust you need with your VPS. Every exciting that there are cheaper options, they do have their uses.
Re: AWS down again?
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Many companies spend enough on AWS to buy an entire rack of hardware at a different data center every month and pay 2-3 employees to manage it. That hardware would be up to 100X as fast and powerful as what they rent at AWS and bandwidth would be almost free. That's a really distorted market. The amortized costs should not be this different. I think the issue here is that it's not zero-cost to switch. Your processes…
Things like OpenStack are promising if they can become easier to install and run. https://www.openstack.org
It’s been a decade. Openstack is still a disorganized, unstable mess. It’s not gonna happen if it hasn’t by now.
Re: AWS down again?
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entirety of StackOverflow runs on something like 4 machines. Abstraction layers are expensive, and having to learn scaling methodologies unnecessarily when a better choice of upfront technology would render it unnecessary is very un-agile.
StackOverlow doesn't run on just 4 machines. Even in 2016 it required significant hardware: 4 Microsoft SQL Servers (new hardware for 2 of them) 11 IIS Web Servers (new hardware) 2 Redis Servers (new hardware) 3 Tag Engine servers (new hardware for 2 of the 3) 3 Elasticsearch servers (same) 4 HAProxy Load Balancers (added 2 to support CloudFlare) 2 Networks (each a Nexus 5596 Core + 2232TM Fabric Extenders, upgraded…
Compare this to the many companies spending 6+ figures on AWS, and ask which has more traffic.
Re: AWS down again?
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
An our on premise linux server recently reached an uptime of 1000 days. Yes, days.
Do you not patch your servers? Or you don't need reboot for Linux devices?
I dont know, we received a happy email from our IT team to celebrate 1000 days of uptime just few days ago.