According to Google's support (....) the workaround works but will likely fix it only temporarily.
They are currently rolling out a change that should completely fix the issue and somewhere else I read they are rolling back a config change they did recently..
As a French living in Paris and having created a company before I'm sorry but some of your points are simply not true and/or not relevant.
> $130k in the US [...] vs. $50k
Just no, a $130k salary in the US would be at least 70k€ in Paris. In others city it would probably be less but the cost of living would be much less too.
> there's even talk of actually forcing men to take paternity leave
Just because one organization (OFCE) ask for it 3 days ago doesn't make it a reality.
> even something as simple as getting business-class internet requires a SIRET number
I pay 30€/month for 1Gbits/250Mbs. If you need more than that, you're already a business and have a SIRET. Same for the phone line. I don't know about incorporation paperwork in the US but I did it alone in France and it was really not that hard. It took me a week max to get everything.
> Paris -- expensive, somewhat dirty, a dreadful public transport system
It's 73€/month, and half is paid by your employer for unlimited access to all transport in Île-de-France. Do you really find this expensive? Paris also provide the "best access to public transport in the world" according to some recent article. http://www.thelocal.fr/20161011/parisians-have-best-access-t...
Yes some place are dirty but isn't that the case all over the world?
That said Paris is far from my favorite city in France. And as you said the job market is probably far less liquid than in the US because of the CDI. Even if I personally think that this is a good thing. In software development/operations there is still more jobs than applicant at least in Paris.
> Just no, a $130k salary in the US would be at least 70k€ in Paris. In others city it would probably be less but the cost of living would be much less too.
In regard to this, I think what needs to be mentioned is the number of $130,000/year jobs in the US for developers/engineers, even outside of NYC/Boston/SF.
I live in the Great Lakes Region in the US. The starting salary for most engineers that I see is $50,000-$60,000k and then those companies also have health insurance benefits and the like. The salaries for experienced engineers that I've seen are closer to $100,000 (~5-7 years experience), and you can probably nearly double that for NYC/Boston/SF. I'm not sure of the cost of living differences between Paris and those cities, but I think US engineers are unequivocally paid better, even if you account for all of the great social benefits that France has (and many areas in the US desperately need).
tokyo has way better access to public transport than Paris. And better quality transport too. Again chauvinism coming out whenever anything is mentioned about France. Paris n est pas le nombril du monde.
For a country about to have so many elderly people, I think the elevators are hard to reach and the floors shouldn't have been made of hard shiny/slippery marble. And it's actually quite expensive to get around if you start counting.
There's nothing in the world to complain about aside from that.
> And it's actually quite expensive to get around if you start counting.
Because you are closer to paying the real price of the ticket than in Paris where transportation is heavily subsidized by the state. In Japan most train companies have now become fully private.
The great thing about private train companies is how many other businesses they've built in the stations. There's a near infinite number of fake-French cafes in every subway.
Meanwhile here my nearest Caltrain station has some car repair places and a mystery fondue restaurant that never seems to open. I think it's a money laundering scheme.
Well look at Paris' metro and its lack of elevators and escalators. Most stations have none! Good luck if you are in your seventies and your legs don't carry you anymore...
tokyo has way better access to public transport than Paris.
And at half the density. The median neighborhood of the Toyko metro area is 150 while central Paris is 300 and outlying neighborhoods—not as well served by transit as Tokyo's—are over 200.
And better quality transport too.
That's largely a matter of serving Japanese passengers. In my experience, no one else matches the consistent care and respect that even young and rowdy Japanese people actively apply to public space.
Density is a little bit bullshit, because density only takes in account the people living in a particular place, not the folks who actually commute every single day to work to go into offices where nobody lives.
Actually the rail network in Tokyo transports far more people than the RER/Metro in Paris, every single day.
Tokyo is busiest rail network in the world. Paris is far, far behind.
> That's largely a matter of serving Japanese passengers
No, even the stations, the network, the trains themselves are of better quality that the ones in Paris, and have much higher passenger capacity too. Well, Paris' network is pretty old so you can't blame them for everything, but they have stopped investing heavily in transportation for a long time. The metro trains are still ancient in Paris.
Actually the rail network in Tokyo transports far more people than the RER/Metro in Paris
Tokyo's metro population is 35 million. Paris's is 11 million. Each of them is served by multiple commuter and underground subway train networks. Comparing raw passenger numbers is ridiculous.
Density is a little bit [obscenity],
Density over the built up parts of a metro area, including offices, homes, parks, industrial and commercial areas, and roadways, tells us quite a lot about the basis of transit dynamics. Paris consistently packs a lot more people in the same land area than Tokyo.
No, even the stations, the network, the trains themselves are of better quality that the ones in Paris
Paris spends enormous amount compensating for its more difficult passenger base with space, maintenance, security, cleaning personnel, and more. That doesn't even begin to address the different demands for municipal investment and corruption in governance. Many collective projects that succeed in Japan could never do so in nations where citizens are less committed to cooperation.
I don't claim it's the best of the world but calling it expensive and dreadful if just not the reality. Compared to what I have experienced mostly in Europe I found it good and inexpensive.
You should mention the numerous strikes of the RER to give a full picture of the reality then. Because that's a real issue for people who want to rely ONLY on public transports in Paris.
And when it's not a strike, it's the breakdowns. This morning, my commute was one hour longer since there was no train on my line and I had to walk to another one.
Paris metro system definitely has an amazing coverage. I really enjoyed using it, but I'm athletic, love walking and don't have any injuries. On the other hand, I recently had to use it with someone who's knees aren't so good - I never realized how steep those stairs are and how few escalators are there. If you have any kind of disability or kids with strollers, it's definitely not the most comfortable way to travel.
Yeah but is still not as managed as I want. You still need to populate a Kubernetes cluster which is 3 node minimum. Instances show up in your instances list and you still have to be careful to pop your instances in different zones/region for availability.
In an ideal world I just want to run containers in a region with a LB in front, I don't care on which Kubernetes cluster they are. That the use case hyper.sh seems to address (but I didn't test it to be honnest).
Once you've got the GKE cluster stood up (two clicks or so), you don't need to care which cluster you are on. The gcloud CLI remembers whatever you set.
It's very hands-off. And if you ever do want to take more direct control, you've still got the option of doing more or all of it on your own.
Let's say you have two images: web and db. Web containers ask for high cpu, but small disk. DB requires big mem and disk.
With GKE, you either have different instance types for different container sizes; or you launch the BIG&TALL VMs for all.
The same story applies to public/private network as well. Point is that in GKE, there are two layers to manage: VM and Containers. In Hyper, the container is the infra.
That's a terrible argument considering Hyper gives you no fine-grained control over instance types. You just get a linearly-increasing allocation of CPU cores and RAM.
Does somebody have some insight about why there is such a gap between 1G ethernet and 10G ? I mean I have gigabit internet at my home why can't I have a faster local network for a reasonable price ? Is it just too soon or there is a real technological gap ?
Consumer demand for faster ethernet has essentially stalled at the same time as wired broadband stopped getting faster.
People don't expect to get > 1G broadband any time soon. 10 years ago broadband was doubling in speed regularly. Instead moving last mile to faster fiber, demand was channeled to iPhones with choppy 4G.
Here in Japan, the NURO Hikari service of Sony Network Communications offers FTTH with 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink speeds for around ¥6500 (~65 USD) per month. It's only available in the central wards of Tokyo and a part of Kanagawa prefecture, but you can get it right now.
My impression is that a 10Gbase-T PHY requires far more than 10x as many transistors as a 1000base-T PHY; maybe closer to 100x. This caused a death spiral where high prices lead to low volume that prevents prices from dropping.
There is also the problem that 10gbe over copper requires interleaving, whereas optical doesn't. A lot of 10gbit uses are latency sensitive. 2.5 and 5 usage is not likely to be latency sensitive usage.
2.5 and 5 are based on the existing 10gbase-t technology, and can be deployed over existing Cat5e and Cat6, whereas 10gbase-t only works reliably over existing Cat6 sometimes less than 100ft.
802.3bz's genius is basically running 10gbase-t at half or quarter the clock speed, requiring lower spec cabling but also lower power/lower heat parts. I don't know why this wasn't done as part of the original 10gbase-t specification (802.3an, which is now 10 years old; in comparison, 802.3ab, which defines 1gbase-t, is 17).
In addition, for embedded hardware, 2.5 and 5 are a better fit for common on-chip SerDes implementations when you need to wire stuff up that way.
As for power usage, a modern 10gbase-T controller ran at 1/4th the clockspeed (and voltage also appropriately adjusted) would use less than 1/4th the power, but be more power efficient than an existing modern 1gbase-t, per gbit/sec.
The real question is, when will all the cheap "we need an ethernet port but nothing fancy" controllers (which are all gigabit in anything recognizable as a computer, 100mbit becoming more and more rare in anything not recognizable as a computer) become baby 10gbit? That's all I really care about.
10GBaseT only works reliably over "cat6a" and cat7 cable that costs close to $350 per 1000 ft (305 meters), whereas two strand singlemode G.657.A2 type cable now costs less than $85 per 1000 ft, or less than cat5e. This is why most datacenter environments use fiber and not copper. Also cat6a and cat7 will fill overhead cabling trays a great deal faster because of its huge diameter compared to singlemode patch cables.
Yes, this is true. I work in this industry, and I also recommend fibre over copper for these reasons. However, for rack local wiring (ie, wiring servers into top of rack switches), cat6 for 10gbase-t is acceptable, although I don't particularly care for it.
Eh, with the plethora of DAC SFP+ cables at extremely affordable prices I don't really see many people using CAT6 - especially considering the substantially higher power draw that 10GBase-T has over the DAC's.
This doesn't quite fulfill the role either though...
A quick search for SFP+ cards that can handle 10Gbit/sec shows that the typical price is ~200 USD/card right now (this is still at least 3x the cost per card I'd prefer to see).
Given the pricing on individual cards I'd hate to consider the price of a switch, if such a thing even exists.
We're talking about datacenter usage, not home. Also, there's plenty of older generation cards out there at reasonable prices, the Mellanox Connect-X 2 cards I have in my home servers cost me like $40 for a pair of them. And no matter how you slice it, 10GBe switching is expensive right now, like, crazy expensive - to the point that I don't even bother with it and my VMWare box is connected directly to my FreeNAS box with a 1M SFP+ DAC as a switch with even two 10GB uplink ports would have cost me considerably more than my cheap 24-port TP-Link managed switch ($150).
The google documention is a good starting point you can find some real world examples.
I like working with the google deployment manager, it's easy to use and powerful. You could, for a start, setup a webserver in an instance group with autoscalling and load balancing. https://cloud.google.com/deployment-manager/docs/
