If you use Terminal on top of AWS (one deployment option) we can just migrate your workloads without rebooting.
The way it works is that you read the RAM pages from one machine to another in real time and when the RAM cache is almost synchronized you slam the IP address over to the new box (and then you let Amazon reboot your old box and then migrate back post-upgrade if you want to).
You can try it out on our public cloud at terminal.com if you'd like to (we auto-migrate all of our customers off of the degrading hardware before it reboots on our public cloud, but you can control that if you're running terminal as your infrastructure).
Are you running your VMs inside Amazon VMs? Or are you running containers instead, to avoid the overhead of having 3 nested OSs (the Xen host > the Amazon Xen guest > your VM)? If you run containers, how do you guarantee isolation of tenants (it is generally considered to be very difficult to achieve)?
We are running a custom container implementation. The goal of our implementation is containers that perform like VMWare.
Process isolation is hard, but we've achieved it. We currently have some tens of thousands of users on our public cloud with zero container breakout, and while no security is perfect, we're constantly trying to improve our offering through White Hat bounties and constant security testing. In this case, I can tell you heuristics with which you can infer security, but I can't blanket label something as secure. I would say I think it's the most secure new virtualization tech, but I would also note that's a matter of personal opinion. Again, zero container breakout is probably the main point.
You can run our virtualization inside of Amazon, in which case you only really have the pain of Xen host + Amazon Xen, but it performs faster on bare-metal (as one might expect).
Isn't your ability to "migrate workloads without rebooting" similar to Google Compute Engine transparent maintenance and to the live-update capability that Amazon is progressively deploying (which is explained in the post)?
How is it different from Xen or KVM live migration?
I mean, I'm a little biased because I work there, but Terminal gives you multi-tenancy of compute and data workloads by default, and you get almost all of the properties of VMWare on containers (including VMotion style migrations).
You can make an account and boot apache Spark in about 30 seconds using this link . It's running in production right now for a lot of people, and you can run Mesos on top of Terminal if you want it .
Again, I'm not trying to push this on you if you're happy with how stuff works today, but I think we've made a PaaS that solves a lot of these problems (and we'll let you run it on your own metal too if you want it). Check it out at terminal.com if you have some free time.
Have you read that link? Do you know what is under discussion here? The actual misunderstanding is between reducing something by a tenth and reducing it by a great deal. In that context, "decimate" does indeed mean to reduce by a tenth. Even the most pessimistic legalization forecasts see greater changes in trafficking than a reduction of a tenth.
Maybe you're not a churchgoer, but the additional meaning of "tithe" discussed in your link confirms even further that a tenth is what "decimate" is about, because those who tithe, typically tithe a tenth of their incomes.
[EDIT:] Language changes, and attempts to avert such changes, are both part of what "language" means. Don't even get me started on "penultimate". b^) I wouldn't have commented, except that parent (since deleted) was a fairly aggressive, specific, and substantially incorrect ("nuh-uh! decimation can also refer to tithing!") criticism of josh2600's comment.
Wonderful piece, but the author is wrong about one point.
The idea that Piano rolls predate all other programmable storage medium is factually incorrect. Surely the Jacquard loom and its punch-card system, patented in 1801, pre-date the piano rolls of the 1900's?
Other than that, a great piece, but I would be remiss if I missed a chance to remind people of how amazing (and early) the Jacquard loom must've been at the time.
Well, there's a reported cylinder-based musical automaton in the 850 CE "Book of Ingenious Devices": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ingenious_Devices
So it looks like mechanical musical instruments may have been the earliest to use storage media, even if not exactly piano rolls.
Good point. I probably could have done more research on that. The little that I DID do placed the piano roll at late 1800s. I'm not a historian. ;) I absolutely find all these ancient systems remarkable.
Look, I normally agree with almost everything you say, but this is just not true. Wheeler was at the NCTA until divestiture, then he saw the writing on the wall and went to CTIA and CWA. After CWA he worked for Core which is a very industry heavy VC.
Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for over 20 years, talks to Meredith at CTIA on a first-name basis and knows all of the people who run the telcos and their lobbying organizations. In some narrative, he's the perfect person to lead the FCC and in another, he's not.
My opinion is that, YES, he was a lobbyist and YES he is anti-neutrality because that was the position that made the most sense at the beginning of his tenure. I'm bullish that he'll come over to the Network Neutrality side (and gave indications in that direction at CTIA Super Mobility week this year) but I think there's a chance he'll do title 2 with lots of caveats that will make this, let's say, complicated.
You are right that memes aren't helpful, but Wheeler was actually the biggest lobbyist in the history of telecom, IMHO, so that much is quite true. Whether he is anti-neutrality now is up for debate, but when he took the office, well, I think there's little evidence to show he was in favor of neutrality then.
I take your point, that Wheeler was a lobbyist for network operators for most of his career. I think "cable company lobbyist" is still a particularly dumb way to sum him up, but can see why lobbying for telcos is also scary for someone arbitrating net neutrality.
I think you mean minimal infrastructure should be subsidized. There is no free in the physical world. The internet you are using comes in on big copper (or glass) cables and tearing up the ground costs lots of money. Overhead wireless internet is feasible, but not at the scale of an entire city, let alone a nation.
It's not like you can wave your hand and have a network magically appear. People have to dig up the streets, put the cables in the ground and connect things. There are servers in big datacenters and routers and all sorts of technical devices that have to be configured. It is not as simple as pushing a button and making your code open-source; building networks is construction not publishing.
If you think the internet should be subsidized (or nationalized) that's a conversation, but asking private companies to give things for free is ludicrous (you either mandate it to be free or accept the private status quo). If you really want free wifi, lobby for it.
Is the Internet a business or not? Is telecom a business or not? The highways are nationalized, and I'd argue that they work pretty darn well. It's very politically difficult to go from a privatized industry to a nationalized one, particularly in America (it has only historically happened during times of war or massive banking crises and even then quite rarely).
The fundamental question is this: Are these networks public or private? If they're public, most of these questions are non-issues. If they're private, again, most of these questions are non-issues. The reason we're talking about this stuff is because the line between public and private is hard to define.
Yes, I meant free in the sense that a certain basic level would be free OF CHARGE to everyone physically using it. Free basic level of food, water, education, medical care, internet, police, etc. There are good economic reasons for this.
Subsidized isn't exactly right because it sounds like the customer still has a copay. I mean wealth redistribution, but only to provide the basics for everyone.
One can probably achieve this by a basic income calculated in terms of the "minimal cost of living" in a certain area. If people want more than that, then they can start a company, pay taxes, go work etc. But those taxes would go towards ensuring the minimum.
In short I'm arguing for a very well-defined minarchist position that I can defend.