Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: DevilsPGD on 4 Jul 2010 21:05 In message <sLTXn.8277$3%3.7081(a)newsfe23.iad> Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote: >A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary >between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs >with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow, >my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to >another server/provider. Sidekick was similar, except that data was lost after a reboot. Although it's not as easy a reboot to lose your data in the event of an Exchange failure, if the Exchange server comes back up with a blank mailbox (using the same credentials) you'll lose all your data on the device. Even worse, should you attempt to remove the account from your device or change it to a new server, you'll again lose all your data. The model of treating the server as authoritative is a good one in general (SyncML is an example of the disaster that happens without an authoritative owner) but it relies on the server administrators having proper backup procedures in place. This isn't too difficult (and is several orders of magnitude easier to implement than having ever user attempt to backup their own data)
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 21:08 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:14 -0700, in <2ub236haaai7n6qsq9fdq3k9jejgjqgklh(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >In message <sLTXn.8277$3%3.7081(a)newsfe23.iad> Todd Allcock ><elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote: > >>A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary >>between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs >>with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow, >>my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to >>another server/provider. > >Sidekick was similar, except that data was lost after a reboot. The Sidekick data was recovered. The problem was incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the technology. >Although it's not as easy a reboot to lose your data in the event of an >Exchange failure, if the Exchange server comes back up with a blank >mailbox (using the same credentials) you'll lose all your data on the >device. Even worse, should you attempt to remove the account from your >device or change it to a new server, you'll again lose all your data. Not if it's backed up properly. >The model of treating the server as authoritative is a good one in >general (SyncML is an example of the disaster that happens without an >authoritative owner) SyncML works quite well. >but it relies on the server administrators having >proper backup procedures in place. This isn't too difficult (and is >several orders of magnitude easier to implement than having ever user >attempt to backup their own data) Yep. -- Best regards, John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 21:10 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:04:14 -0600, in <sLTXn.8277$3%3.7081(a)newsfe23.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >Yes, about a week after the server crash. > >Of course that didn't make as many headlines as the loss did! ;) > ><http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-takes-credit-for-resolving- >Sidekick-data-loss-but-not-for-causing-it/1255618540> > >The real problem with the Sidekick's method of "cloud computing" was that >there was essentially no local storage- the data was on the cloud and >phone only, with no backup. There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology. >A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary >between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs >with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow, >my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to >another server/provider. It makes sense to maintain your own backup, just as it makes sense to replicate your backup in the cloud. -- Best regards, John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 21:14 In article <v4c236ldgtpkaladtpeip58tflq04iraco(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >The real problem with the Sidekick's method of "cloud computing" was that > >there was essentially no local storage- the data was on the cloud and > >phone only, with no backup. > > There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was > incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology. actually they decided to upgrade the system without having an up to date backup in place and had to reconstruct it to recover most (not all) of the data. and yes, it was incompetence by microsoft. > >A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary > >between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs > >with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow, > >my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to > >another server/provider. > > It makes sense to maintain your own backup, > just as it makes sense to replicate your backup in the cloud. depends on what the data is. some things *can't* be in the cloud.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 4 Jul 2010 21:33
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:23:30 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >A good deal of it is apparently expected to come from broadcasters who >would voluntarily agree in return for compensation from the auction. ><http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?cid=742801> A bit more detail. Note that Blair Levin wants to take back the 2nd broadcast channel that the broadcasters received from the FCC in trade for going digital: <http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/21/daily.4/> Based on past auctions, he figures the auction of some 300 Mhz of broadcast spectrum would bring in up to $75 billion. So, $75 billion is what 300MHz is worth. How much is the government willing to pay the TV broadcasters to go away? So far, no numbers. There are: 1,813 TV/Digital Stations 11,332 FM Stations 5,091 AM Stations 3,649 Low power FM and TV stations The TV stations take in about $21 billion per year in advertising revenue: <http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/453741-SNL_Kagan_Stations_Seeing_21_Bil_in_2010_Revenue.php> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell. Also, if this is all about job creation, it's a funny way to do it by decimating broadcast jobs. So, the broadcasters ummm... voluntarily contribute 300MHz. Where will the other 200MHz come from? There are other ways to squeeze blood from a turnip: "President Proposes $4.8 Billion in Spectrum-user Fees" <http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/94044> Of course the buyers of all this spectrum are going to pass on the $75 billion in auction bids to the consumer. I can't wait to see how much this new mobile and fixed broadband service is going to cost the consumer. The FCC has also been rather busy auctioning whatever they can find: <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=bandplans> Some auctions went for peanuts. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |