Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 1) 231

I thought it was about single points of failure. That's what I was talking about. That's the focus for network availability I generally see. People spending $10,000,000 to take a 99.999% uptime network to 99.99% and claiming victory.

In my experience, simpler is more reliable. Even when that gives up redundancy. The redundancy failure I saw last week was the secondary system failed, and nobody knew, until the primary system failed, and the backup failed to kick in. When you have one and only one system, you tend to maintain it better. No need with 10 redundant systems, and when 9 of them fails, nobody is looking.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 1) 231

STP failures and flaps can cause outages, but requiring an admin to manually move patch cables and activate hardware almost always causes larger, longer outages.

Yes. But how often have you had an untouched cable fail? Maybe once in a lifetime career? How many times should you expect STP to take down a network? I've seen that happen many more times. Though, touched cables fail often. The barely-on connector that fails when you brush it getting to a power connection on an unrelated piece of gear. But, you are right there and prepared for it, so you can fix it before STP convergence time.

Comment Re: Never Down (Score 1) 231

(And I'm not involved in networking in our team, I look after servers and applications).

Good, because 802.1x isn't MAC authentication, so MAC spoofing is unrelated to that topic. And your solution of active/active load balancers still leaves you with a single point of failure. Active/active, by definition, has a single configuration across the devices. So one typo on one device can take down both. Back to a single point of failure.

Comment Re:Imagine that (Score 1) 196

So, you are saying that you believe Trump to be the best candidate? You are simply filled with hate. In your case for Hillary, as you can't stand to see someone who hates Hillary talk bad about Trump. You are an irrational little hate monger.

I'm not voting Clinton. Your lies and stupidity have blinded you. You assume anyone who recoginzes serial rapist and fraudster Trump to be a bad choice must be a Hillary worshipper. You are just an idiot. I've never said a good word about Hillary (aside from pointing out lies said about her as such). Yet you think I'm delusional and a Hillary worshipper. That makes you the delusional liar.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 4, Insightful) 231

And no, redundancy doesn't make things harder as long as it's implemented properly

"properly" by your definition is prohibitively expensive. Almost nobody does it. Realistic redundancy leaves lots of gaps and holes. And in many cases, active/standby is dangerous. HSRP, STP, and many other protocols are active/standby with errors in the standby allowing massive networking failures. And, of course, the protocol to manage that redundancy is a single point of failure. You could abandon HSRP to avoid that single point of failure, and instead have multiple gateways and every endpoint running a dynamic routing protocol but that just moves the single point of failure to whatever routing protocol you pick, and isn't generally done for a variety of very good reasons.

Nope, the simplest network is often more reliable than the rube goldberg redundant networks I've seen experts like yourself put together. KISS is one of the first rules, and the more you know, the more it matters. KISS. Anything else is expense for the sake of complexity.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 1) 231

Basic networking. What's your redundancy? HSRP? What happens when someone spoofs your VIP/virtual MAC? Everything is down. I've seen large offices taken down becuase they used as an important device, and someone plugged in a home router under their desk as an AP, causing a conflict that took down a "redundant" network.

Someone can always take it down. So, go for 802.1x on every port to combat that. Now, if you radius server has an issue, nobody can work. Brilliant. Redundancy and security reduce stability. Go back to networking 101. Even redundant SUPs in a chassis-based system have a single linked management. One wrong command in one of the SUPs and you can take down everything. Redundancy rarely survives user error, and makes it harder to bring it back up.

Comment Re:Never Down (Score 5, Insightful) 231

Full redundancy has piles of single points of failure. I've seen a BGP flap take out a Fortune 100 company with N+1 redundancy that cost billions. Redundancy increases complexity, and there's always a point where the "redundancy enabling" technology becomes a single point of failure.

Comment Re:Imagine that (Score 1) 196

Ah yes, the lies of Trump worshipers. Trump rapes and blatantly steals from a charity, and it's all fine because emails. I wasn't talking about emails. You are just using the Chewbacca defense. The evilness of Trump is unrelated to Clinton. That you have to bring up Clinton indicates you know Trump is evil, but you prefer his brand of evil.

At least admit he's evil, you know it, and you are voting for evil. Anything else is lying to yourself and everyone else.

Comment Re:Imagine that (Score 1) 196

The problem with Trump is that he says so much that he contradicts himself. He "clarified" that he'd have the power to keep out returning US citizen Muslims (illegal by US law and international law). Then retracted that, then said it again, then said he was not serious, then implied it, while denying it. And his minions take the one statement from the hundreds of contradicting ones and assert that's Gospel and the only one that matters.

There is no sanity in him or his followers.

Pretty much everything she's already done as Secretyary of State comes down to to putting American lives second for her own personal convenience, power, or financial gain, most usually but not always through the Clinton Foundation.

You mean where she complained about the lack of security and went on record asking Congress for more funds for defending Americans, and the Republican Congress refused, resulting in the deaths of Americans at the hands of Republicans? That one? Or that the Clinton foundation does actual charitable works, while the Trump foundation illegally acts to payoff Trumps debts? Oh yeah, Clintons are evil, because they did a better job of raising funds for their charity. When that's the worst you can find on Clinton, you are really grasping at straws.

Comment Re:Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 5, Insightful) 204

The bigger issue is that they wanted to search an opaque bag. For no reason other than they were curious. Then when it's opened, and shows cards, again, they wanted to search, for no reason other than curiosity.

Police should be required to state on record, into their body-cam the reason they are investigating the bag. "It might be drugs." Not drugs, close it and waive them on. Anything else should be excluded anyway, as there can't have been reasonable suspicion (or the more strict probable cause) if their guess was 100% wrong.

There should be a law passed that the police must articulate PC or RS before invoking either to perform any search. Anything else should get the policeman disciplined, and the arrest thrown out, and evidence returned with apologies (even if it's actually illegal).

Slashdot Top Deals

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.