506 karma · joined March 12, 2007
It's not the same in e.g. Russia (and I'm sure it's not just Russia). In Russia, the Web is now officially being censored by the state. They have a national register of prohibited resources -- basically, a huge list of URLs. Every ISP must block all access to those URLs, or else.
So if a page (perhaps, a comment page?) on your site enters the register, and it is served over unencrypted HTTP, ISPs can use DPI to block the access to just that specific page -- which sucks, but at least your site is still accessible. If, however, you use HTTPS -- then ISPs have no other choice but to block all traffic to your site entirely. Given that choice, many webmasters (myself included) will have to choose plain HTTP.
(full disclosure: I do devops for one of the Russian sites that is currently mirrored by Collateral Freedom)
Also, messing with TLS probably won't work at all. Messing with e.g. MTU sizes, IP sequence numbers and perhaps TCP options, on the other hand, could probably work.
Now, DOB is very bitter, and LSD has no taste. If you put a piece of blotter in your mouth, and it tastes bitter, just spit it out -- that's probably DOB. Otherwise, it's LSD, and it's pure.
What? Where? The only mention of "big four" in his text is about big audit firms being silent about evidence of fraud perpetrated by big Chinese companies.
And yes, password-reset emails may also be a concern (not as severe, though, if reset emails are single-use and have short TTL).
I agree with andrewcooke, it doesn't seem to be a problem of nginx or apache. OS TCP implementation should be modified to handle this type of attacks.
also:
HP can cram three rows of these [4 CPU --jsn] ARM boards, with six per row, for a total of 72 server nodes
From that I conclude that in their calculations 1 CPU == 1 server.
The sales pitch for the Redstone systems, says Santeler, is that a half rack of Redstone machines and their external switches implementing 1,600 server nodes has 41 cables, burns 9.9 kilowatts, and costs $1.2m.
A more traditional x86-based cluster doing the same amount of work would only require 400 two-socket Xeon servers, but it would take up 10 racks of space, have 1,600 cables, burn 91 kilowatts, and cost $3.3m.
Hmm, let's see. It's about 7-8 grands per Xeon server, something like HP Proliant DL360R07 (2 x 6-core Xeons at 2.66GHz). It's 3 times as many cores as Redstone, clocked at 2.66 times greater frequency each, and doing more instructions per clock tick, too. And that's without hyperthreading.
Am I missing something big, or is Redstone solution neither cost-effective nor energy-effective?