Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Theory says more efficient utilization, but... (Score 1) 82

by MarkRose (#49795289) Attached to: Cloud Boom Drives Sales Boom For Physical Servers

Not in all cases. I manage a five figures monthly cloud deployment, and I look at the bill every month looking for ways to reduce costs. Using the cloud is cheaper than maintaining our own data center, before even considering how capital intensive it would be to carry around unused resources ourselves.

If I had to have enough spare resources to handle our occasional traffic spikes, I'd have to spend an extra $100,000 upfront for hardware that would sit around doing nothing almost all the time. But when our traffic triples in fifteen minutes and I need another fifty web servers, they're automatically provisioned and deployed behind the load balancer, and we spend an extra $100 or whatever for the day. Events like that happen maybe five times a year. $500 is a lot less than $100,000.

We also use a similar setup for work queues and scale worker machines based on how long it's taking tasks to get processed. Some hours only one machine is running for a queue, other hours, ten. We use spot pricing, too, on less urgent work, to keep costs down.

At first I was skeptical about cloud computing, but I'm a convert. It works. And it works beautifully. And it saves us a lot of money by allowing us to use a lot fewer servers on an average basis.

Comment: The Tesla power wall IS NOT good for Solar! (Score 1) 501

by LWATCDR (#49791649) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

The Tesla Powerwall IS not that big of a deal and not the solution for Solar!
The 10kwh Powerwall is only good for 50 cycles a year! It is more of a house size UPS. The 7 will work for daily use but it is more expensive per kwh than the 10 and even Solar City is not going to sell the 7.
The Tesla power wall battery still sucks. It does suck less than other battery packs but only a little. The big improvment is one of packaging and frankly hype.
I know that this is going to go counter to the Church of Tesla's teachings but even the Model S really does not count. It is a 100K car for the very rich. Another fact is the simple truth that the Tesla car company is not successful car company yet. It has yet to make a profit.

No we do not need to move to low voltage wiring in our homes because of the "success" of the Powerwall. The Powerwall is the the solution to the solar production/demand problem. And frankly in most homes the biggest power users are things like AC, Hot water heaters, dryers, stoves, refrigerators, and so on. All of which work just fine on AC and I for one do not want to have to have a bus bar the size of my arm running to my dryer so it can work on 12 volts.

Comment: Re:This has been played out before... (Score 1) 501

by ColdWetDog (#49791091) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

Boat people use 36 or 48V in larger vessels. There is a lot of work done in high voltage DC for people with lots more money than sense.

The higher DC voltages seem to work well for everything except household-class heater appliances like dryers. But 12V isn't going to cut it for house-sized objects. Yes, you can do it - but why would you want to?

For one thing, high amp copper cable is expensive and a PITA to install.

Comment: Re:Pist frost (Score 1) 74

by LWATCDR (#49790837) Attached to: GM To Offer Apple CarPlay and Android Auto API In Most 2016 Vehicles

"2) People need to pay attention to what they're doing on the road and quit fucking around with cell phones and other cool whizzo shit on the dashboard."
Because trying to read a paper map and drive at the same time is so much safer...
Sure I agree that that playing angry birds while driving is a bad plan but Things like Nav do make driving safer IMHO. For the idiots that follow nav without question and drive into a river.. Well they would have done that sooner or later anyway.

Comment: Re: Java is done (Score 1) 205

So you're not privvy to what goes on upstairs. Go find somebody in the know, get them drunk, and ask them about massive scaling and Google's patents on map/reduce.

In the meantime this seems like a good idiological fit. The surveillance-funded corporations will be taken care of while the USG destroys the software industry, which is too wildly successful for a completely unregulated market. Nimble big-name companies have already fled or are in the process of fleeing the jurisdiction, leaving work-a-day programmers to manage the leavings or find a different line of work.

Comment: Perspective? (Score 2) 322

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#49790223) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier
This article seems(somewhat bizarrely) to be written from the perspective of Google, Inc. but purporting to be talking about "android" and its prospects.

There is certainly a place for analysis of "So, did this 'android' stuff pay off for Google? Was it roughly break-even? A strategic failure?"; but that's quite different than "How is Android doing? What are its prospects?". Conflating the two, though, is confused at best and outright nonsense at worst(especially when examining the 'running Android, possibly even developing it in some way; but not running "Android+Google Play Services"' slice of the market'.

So, is Apple the one actually making money on smartphones? Hell yeah. Has Android been tepid in terms of actually making Google any money? At best; it may well be directly losing money and only appearing to pull its weight as a strategic play. Are the margins for most Android handset manufacturers pretty unexciting compared to Apple? Also hell yeah. However(much like the PC OEMs), that may not actually affect Android: None of the Android OEMs gets the option of joining Apple in making iPhones(except the ones that happen to also have divisions that manufacture components for Apple, like Samsung). Apple has zero interest in letting them do that. So, they can either ship Android handsets with Google, ship AOSP+their own or somebody else's stuff; ship Windows Phone, attempt to build their own OS entirely, or leave the market. Shipping Android handsets with Google isn't a terribly high-margin strategy; but it is so far unclear whether any of the other options are any higher margin.

It is very likely that Google isn't getting nearly as much of what they want from Android as they would like; and Android OEMs certainly aren't earning terribly exciting margins on their devices; but that's their problem. It only becomes Android's problem if Google decides to pull the plug, or if OEMs abandon it in favor of WP or one of the assorted linux-with-stuff-on-top-but-not-android options. So far, WP has gotten fairly good reviews; but struggled for marketshare, and the not-Android Linux derivatives are all writhing around near the noise floor. This isn't obviously a good thing, Android is a pile of mediocrity in quite a few respects, even if some of Google's applications and services for it are pretty good; but it is still the case: Since nobody gets to be an iOS vendor except Apple, and Nokia is MS' special buddy, with other OEMs allowed but sharing a very small pond; 'Android' is a fight over some pretty unexciting margins; but unless a company simply wishes to stop manufacturing smartphones and tablets, it's a fight they'll probably remain in for some time to come.

Sure, I'd love the second coming of WebOS to sweep away the unbelievers and deliver us; but that doesn't appear to be in the cards.

My computer can beat up your computer. - Karl Lehenbauer