I always include a $20.00 and a note when I send a laptop in for repair. In the note I explain exactly what I'd like done. Always works with Lenovo.

At risk of being put online? Don't people risk exposing their license plates every time they back out of the garage?

I think the real concern is, "This just puts millions of illegally parking individuals at risk of being publicly shamed."

The best protection for any one concerned their license plate may end up online seems pretty simple and obvious: think ahead, be considerate, and don't park like an asshole.

Can't you just download the keplerian elements from NORAD and use gpredict? Actually, doesn't gpredict automate that for you? I don't think you need any special hardware, just an accurate clock.

I'm sorry but the energy density of hopes and dreams is nowhere close to that of gasoline.

You know, I think the lack of fire alarms is by far the biggest WTF especially considering how much effort they invested in the HV room's grounding setup, for example.

Hindsight's 20/20.

So, I read your initial question a bit closer and realized you'd identified the IPs as microsoft and amazon services. In fact, I suspect they're IPs related to content distribution servers. I'm quite certain your router's DOS warnings are false positives.

Your problem is most certainly not the result of a DOS.

I can envision two scenarios. First, the less likely one.

First Scenario: Trojan Horse
One or more machines on your network have been infected/trojaned/compromised somehow. Every time you switch your external IP address, the infected machine dutifully contacts it's nefarious overloards with the news. There's a good chance that one of your compromised machines may actually be part of a botnet. One important question is, "what conditions, specifically, trigger my router's 'DOS attack from xxx' in it's logs." These warnings could well be simply legitimate traffic.

Second Scenario: Operator Error.
Does anyone in your house use BitTorrent? If so, you're probably overflowing your upstream channel and, lo and behold, TCP acks start dropping like flies in a pool of DDT. Netflix doesn't really require a lot of bandwidth to stream it's content and it can manage with even moderate tcp congestion control. If your internet suddenly stops working, I'd suggest checking if your DSL modem has an internal diagnostic webpage. There's a convention, especially common to cablemodems, where the cable/dsl modem will accept traffic to 192.168.100.1 as itself. So, simply browse to http://192.168.100.1 and check if you have any signal quality issues. Basically, the situation needs to be more closely analyzed. Check your bandwidth usage on your router, if you find that your upload traffic is at or near the limit of your bandwidth - if so, get the roommate torrenting to cap his upload to something reasonable - like half of your upload limit.

Your router is fine. No greater, bigger, or fancier of a router will improve your situation if you really, truly are getting DOS'd. If the amount of packets being spewed at your IP address consumes the entirety of your subscribed bandwidth, then that's that. A fancier car won't get you through a traffic jam any faster than my honda, though, I imagine the fancier car's AC might actually work... which would be novel.

Bear in mind that there are different types of DOS attacks. Ping floods or UDP floods/smurf attacks. Making as many concurrent TCP connections to a server as possible to consume the server's kernel connection bookkeeping structures as well as to monopolize file descriptors in the actual server application. Botnet's may even DOS by making as many concurrent requests (you try to go for the cpu intensive ones, like, doing a directory lookup for *.) to consume the server's resources and, effectively, deny service to legitimate users. Oh, and if they get really fancy, they'll use a reverse tarpit wherein the client intentionally drags it's feet receiving the reply (a few bytes here, a few bytes 20 seconds later.) requiring the server's outbound buffers and application contexts bloated.

The above is why I genuinely doubt the veracity of your router's "DOS ATTACK FROM XXY" log message. Also because designing a computer program for identifying what traffic constitutes a DOS and what is legitimate are really quite non trivial.

Oh, hey, my backups are done and it's time to take these tapes to the vault; therefore, I shall conclude my post.

Do some more diagnosis and good luck!

I use my TPM to store my sshkeys. Unfortunately, only RSA. Also, I have no idea what the private key is, it was generated and stored inside the TPM. The TPM even does the signing internally (I use a hacked up version of ssh-agent that basically passes requests to/from the TPM as if it were a smartcard.)

Advantages?
1. If someone cracks my laptop, they can only sign with my key while they are connected to it.
2. If I reinstall, swap harddrives, whatever, my keys are still there.
3. If someone steals my harddrive, they dont have my keys.
4. Novelty. I'm the only person I know that has used their TPM to do anything.

Cons?
1. I can't get my private key out.
2. If someone figures out how to get my private key out AND they crack my laptop, they could steal my private key.
3. It's kinda slow.
4. If my motherboard dies, my private key goes with it.
I'm sure there are a few more.

Unfortunately, while the NVS series bare the Quadro branding, NVidia does not support the professional/scientific feature sets on those chips. So, features like the unified back buffer, etc. are not available. Essentially, the NVS450 is a card with two GeForce 8400 chips and a PCI-E to PCI-E bridge. It's kinda lame.

NVidia marketing material suggests that the NVS line is intended for business users who need to support many displays without any advanced rendering.

While you're right, I imagine the NVS450 costs more than a pair of GTX220 or GT650 cards; he'd be better served with your suggestion than the NVS card. Personally, I suspect his desktop is a Dell or HP professional workstation as they generally ship with NVS graphics as the entry-level video solution. I doubt he specifically chose the card.

Also, the best solution to his dilemma, IMHO, is the Matrox DualHead2Go or TripleHead2Go. I know it seems like having more GPUs would be a better solution, but I think less GPUs means less overhead in synchronization, mutexes, locks, etc. That's just a hypothesis... no data to back it up.

That sounds a lot like Michael Crichton's 1972 novel, "The Terminal Man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man

That appears to be an illustrative picture. An image from a different article of an "in production" or "active testing" rack shows grounded shields around the bus bars. This is the wired.com article I'm referring to. The picture is somewhere in the bottom third.

Your assertion that you'd save "way more" by switching to SSD storage is assuming that the spindle disks are the main consumer of current.

According to WD, the WD20EARX draws 5.3W during read/write, 3.3W during idle, and 0.7W standby/seep(which, admittedly is a rare situation in datacenters.) (from the WD20EARX datasheet)

According to Intel, the Intel 910 series SSD draws up to 25W while active and 8W while idle. The Intel 520 series SSD draws 850mW active and 600mW idle. (from the Intel 520 series product specifications.) I don't know if those numbers for the 910 are a typo, because it seems weird that they'd exceed a mechanical drive.

Either way, my point is that the WD's have a power ratio of 2.65W/TB and the Intel 520 SSDs have a power ratio of 1.78W/TB. Which means that switching to SSDs will save you 33% on your storage power needs. Thing is, because the SSDs have less capacity per SATA port, once you factor in the extra necessary RAID controllers, SATA cards or SATA port expanders, the percent power saving will drop. Admittedly, I have no idea by how much.

I guess, my point is to challenge the popularly regarded idea that mechanical harddrives are extremely power hungry. While CPU efficiency has improved considerably in recent years, I hold that CPUs and associated electronics consume a much larger portion of a server's power than commonly believed.

Also, at idle, the WD consumes 1.65W/TB and the intel consumers 1.45W/TB. Then again, it's not a fair comparison because the SSD can switch between idle and active far more quickly than the mechanical drive. So, once you consider more of aspects of the situation, things become less clearly cut.

The facebook hinged storage server must be using their new 21" rack because they (from images) appear to have an arranged the drives in three rows of 5 drives. The 3.5" drive formfactor is 4" wide, meaning that the enclosure must be at least 20" wide to accomodate five drives per row. Also, using their new rack concept, their servers don't include and AC power supply. So, it's not exactly as space efficient when you factor in the 2U power supply at the bottom. With one PS and one 30drive facebook server, you're at 30drives for 4U or an efficiency of 7.5drives/U. One PS and two 30drive servers, you're at 60drives for 6U and an efficiency of 10drives/U. One PS and three 30drive servers, 90 drives on 8U and an efficiency of 11.25 drives/U. At four servers on one PS unit, you've got 120 drives occupying 10U for an efficiency of 12 drives/U. So, once you have four servers together with the associated PS, you finally reach the efficiency of a thumper.

The thumper (Sun x4500 and x4540) had 48 3.5" HDD's, 2 (x4500) or 3 (x4540) 800W/1600W (110VAC or 220VAC) power supplies and an adorable, itty-bitty dual opteron server. 48 drives occupying 4U is an efficiency of 12drives/U.

To be fair, while the 4server, 1power supply configuration only equals the storage density of the thumper, it has better server/cpu/nic density.

As an aside, the full rack setups appear to have three power supply units. Assuming/guessing 42U per rack with 6U devoted to PS, it leaves 36U divided into three bays of 12U. So, with a PS and five facebook hingy servers occupying 10U and sporting 150 drives at 15 drives/U, you finally outdo the thumper.

To be clear, I do believe that there are benefits to the proposed new rack size, but I don't think it's a clear improvement. Personally, I think the thumper design was brilliant. The only purpose of this reply was to point out that it's not as simple as 15 drives per U.

On a separate note, the ability to fit 5 drives side-by-side in a 21" rack is the best justification I've seen, so far, for widening to 21".

Wow, I prefix too many of my comments with insecure clauses devoid of information and only serving to indirectly apologize to the reader for supplying information I think is important for them to understand despite my worry that I'm trying their patience. If you read all of this reply including even this sudden instrospective insight to my character; then, thank you. I'm flattered.

Nope, they increase a "U" to be 48mm from 44.45mm. This is now called an OU. So, 1OU = 48mm or an increase of 8% compared to a regular U. They claim that this 3.55mm increase will "increases airflow, improving air economization; it also allows for better for cable and thermal management and efficient use of space." Personally, I question wether the increase in airflow, cable management, and efficient use of space will be significant. I'd be very keen to see a good example of how these new 48mm rack units will improve cable management.

Also, the bus bars depicted in the photos appear to be incredibly vulnerable to accidental short circuiting.