Networking
Apache 1.3 – you were loved
Feb 4th
So, across my RSS feed today, I saw a blurb…
Apache terminates ‘outated’ web server
What?
I clicked the link and was sent off to The Register for their report on the issue.
Apache 1.3 was released in July, 1998 – 12 years ago, and still in operation today.
At ipHouse – we use 1.3 as the tried and true Apache webserver on our cluster. We’ve not had either issues or problems; and security updates are few and far between. I guess after 12 years no one cares anymore to hack such old code or something.
Goodbye Apache 1.3, we had a long relationship, but your sister is younger and better equipped for todays Internet. Don’t cry, we’ll remember you fondly.
Hello Apache 2.2 – we are look forward to a long relationship on our network behind our F5 load balancers.
*sniffle*
Summary: Apache 1.3.42 is the final release according to the Apache Software Foundation. They recommend moving to Apache 2.2.14. Apache 2.0 will end once Apache 2.4 has been released, and finally, Apache 2.3.5 is in alpha stage.
Reference:
Example cost: Virtual Private Cloud on VMware
Sep 4th
In the last 6 months, I have helped multiple customers achieve their dream of a virtual machine environment built for them exclusively, but with abilities to control their virtual machine setup, configuration, turn up, tear down, etc. These dedicated infrastructure environments are in the ipHouse data center.
This isn’t ‘cloud computing’ as many people think of it (thanks to Amazon EC2 and the like), but it is pretty close to that vague definition, and with far more control available in terms of everything-vm-wise.
What do I mean? With this virtual private cloud, a customer can set up 3 Ubuntu systems, 2 Windows Server 2003, 1 FreeBSD, and 7 Windows Server 2008 systems. There really isn’t anything novel about this (again, reference Amazon EC2 and the like).
What is novel is that the customer can configure these VMs as they wish. Disk space allocation, partitioning, memory configurations, number of vCPUs. Basically, if you can do it on a physical server – you can do it virtually.
Another differentiating feature is that VMware vSphere 4 supports many operating systems while most public cloud providers offer a very limited number in comparison. This choice alone can be enough to warrant looking at this kind of solution.
No per hour fees, no storage fees (above what the customer has purchased), highly available (if configured to do so), dynamic resource scheduling (if configured to do so), bandwidth fees that are predictable. (see VMare vMotion and Storage vMotion, VMware HA, VMware DRS via website)
I’ll build a configuration example offering shared storage between the VMware physical servers. I’ll be doing some cost estimates for the per month fees. These estimates will be high and are purely shown for example. You would want to contact ipHouse Sales to get a real idea for the costs involved.
Virtualization and you – the business user
Feb 16th
Why virtualize? Better yet, why use virtualized server services for your business?
I’ll try to answer that question in this blog post, though from a service provider point of view, but I’ll try to remove my bias where feasible.
Summary: For many business needs, a virtualized server on a hosting providers infrastucture is very cost effective, very secure, and highly reliable. When those 3 items are combined, the argument to use separate, physical servers becomes moot. Virtualized server services are not for everyone, nor for ever task at hand, but for many, it is the more right solution.
Now that the summary is done, you can can read on for details as to why I think the above statements are true or just head on over to ipHouse and talk to sales and see what we can do for you, or both.
First, virtualization has a few meanings, but for this context, I am talking about the concept of taking a physical server (call it a host) and carving it into many virtual systems (call them guests) running concurrently. Here’s a picture from using VMware atoms to help visualize what I am getting at:
VM -> Host visualization
This allows the ability to spread the cost of a fast and expensive physical server amongst multiple guest systems.
Comcast implements bandwidth cap, network still sucks
Aug 30th
Yah, I am a Comcast Internet subscriber. No I do not love it, nor do I hate it.
Personal Opinion: I don’t mind a 250GB cap – I can live with that…I hope.
Subjective Opinion: But some of their numbers do not make any sense to me.
If you view their FAQ on the bandwidth capping, they may not have investigated what their users might use the Internet for or their data is based on the Internet of 2001.
- Send 50 million emails (at 0.05 KB/email)
- Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song)
- Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
- Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo
Okay, so you look at the numbers – and wonder…
Email of .05KB is… 1024 * .05 == 51 bytes. Who sends a 51 byte message? The headers alone are larger than 51 bytes. Is my math broken? My email address with my name included is 36 bytes alone.
BOGGLE
4MB song? At what bitrate? Checking my iTunes library the majority of items I have ripped from my CD collection is closer to 6MB per song using AAC and variable bitrate encoding. Looking at Moby’s Play album (owned and ripped), the songs range in size from 2.1MB (Guitar Flute & String) to 6.7MB (The Sky is Broken). Who listens to 128Kbps MP3s anymore? Eeek!
Movies? Oh my, you may want to continue reading where I give my (obviously) subjective views on this topic.
And photos at 10MB per photo. Wow. My Canon EOS-20D (8MP) is 7MB each. My buddies 5D (12MP) is 11MB each. My wife’s new Canon SD770IS (10MP) is 4.2-5.3MB each. Most people I know don’t have photos of this size (in MB, not resolution). Their math works, but only on the broken assumption that the photos really are 10MB in size. This is the area where they actually overestimated in my opinion.
Complaint and possible solution to negative commentary: How about Comcast implements this new cap, and fixes their network so I no longer have to deal with subpar performance at any time of the day. I regularly get approximately 4-4.5Mbps while I pay for 8Mbps. Ignore that PowerBoost Technology, that’s just junk. Sure, I have downloaded at the full bandwidth I have purchased, and downloaded for a long time at that sustained rate. But I don’t normally get said speeds, and time of day doesn’t matter. This has been tested via my firewall (Fortigate 60) and direct connecting of my laptop (a Mac Book Pro) and my workstation (Mac Pro). Can be frustrating sometimes, but then it is time to just walk away and go check out the big blue room – scary stuff if you ask me.
Continue reading to see more of my (possibly broken) math dealing with television and movies and why the cap could hurt real people.
