I think the most likely bottleneck is gonna be your NIC hating getting a ton of packets. Line rate with huge frames is quite different than line rate with just ICMP packets, for instance (see CME binary glink market data for a similarly stressful experience to the ICMP).
When people talk about a single server they are pretty much talking about either a single physical box with a CPU inside or a VPS using a few processor threads.
When they say "most companies can run in a single server, but do backups" they usually mean the physical kind.
The term is absolutely ambiguous and I know I've run into confusion in my own work due to the ambiguity. For the purpose of the C10K, server is intended to mean server process rather than hardware.
> You can buy a 1000MHz machine with 2 gigabytes of RAM and an 1000Mbit/sec Ethernet card for $1200 or so. Let's see - at 20000 clients, that's 50KHz, 100Kbytes, and 50Kbits/sec per client. It shouldn't take any more horsepower than that to take four kilobytes from the disk and send them to the network once a second for each of twenty thousand clients.
This is definitely talking about scaling past 10K open connections on a single server daemon (hence the reference to a web server and an ftp server).
However, most people used dedicated machines when this was written, so scaling 10K open connections on a daemon was essentially the same thing as 10K open connections on a single machine.
> You can buy a 1000MHz machine with 2 gigabytes of RAM and an 1000Mbit/sec Ethernet card for $1200 or so
Those are not "by process" capabilities and daemons were never restricted to a single process.
The article focuses on threads because processes had more kernel level problems than threads. But it was never about processes limitations.
And by the way, process capabilities on Linux are exactly the same as machine capabilities. There's no limitation. You are insisting everybody uses a category that doesn't even exist.
Of course daemons weren't limited to a single process, but the old 1 process per connection forking model wasn't remotely scalable, not only because of kernel deficiencies (which certainly didn't help), but also because of the extreme cost of context switches on the commodity servers back then.
Now perhaps my memory is a bit fuzzy after all these years, but I'm pretty sure when I asking about scaling above 15,000 simultaneous connections back in 1999 (I think the discussion on linux-kernel is referenced in this article), it was for a server listening on a single port that required communication between users and the only feasible way at the time to do that was multiplexing the connections in a single process.
Without that restriction, hitting 10,000 connections on a single Linux machine was much easier by running multiple daemons each listening on their own port and just use select(). It still wasn't great, but it wasn't eating 40% of the time in poll() either.
Most of the things the article covers: multiplexing, non-blocking IO and event handling were strategies for handling more connections in a process. The various multiplexing methods discussed were because syscalls like poll() scaled extremely poorly as the number of fds increased. None of that is particularly relevant for 1 connection per process forking daemons where in many cases, you don't even need polling at all.
The answer if for congress to make a legal definition of corporation, instead we get the justice system coming up with a handwavy explanation that helps out their golfing buddies.
The answer is to get rid of the common law justice system and codify laws in congress like a civil law system. That way you dont get rich people trying to buy favors or "tip" judges.
I dont think youd get less rich-people-friendly decisions from ccongress. It may well be the opposite. Certainly it removes some of the separation of powers.
No but i think you get more accountability and visibility. Right now we could never do this but in a functioning democracy I think it would be prudent.
In civil law when there is no clear precedent congress gets involved preventing the kind of critisisms we get in our legal system of activist judges ect.
The treating of a corporation as a 'person' (which is a widely held misconception that doesn't really exist) rests in English common law, not any statute. Corporate personhood does not mean anything of what most people think it does. Corporations are obviously not people and are not treated as such.
My point is the benefit greatly from the distinction, never codified in law. They have more rights and fewer responsibilities than actual people!
They way it "should" be is that congress creates a legal framework for coporations, then justices enforce that. Instead we are living with a nearly two centuries old common law that makes peoples lives worse.
My argument that if corporations are people, then they cannot be bought or sold is the kind of argument you can use to create legal precedent by suing some company over a merger or buyout to test the law and the strength of the original case law.
Corporations have no rights apart from the people that comprise them. I have no idea why people believe this.
Even the corporate money in campaign thing is literally because people who own corporations have rights to donate, not the corporation itself. As long as corporations are run by humans, the humans who control their assets are free to do as is.
Again, no one understands corporate personhood yet we all need to be angered by it. Because, 'John should not be able to do what he wants with his money' makes people seem like extremists.
If you actually think common law treats corporations as indistinguishable from people ,I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you.
The proper reference isn't the dictionary. US socialization stems largely from the US Constitution. Within that framework, Person has a different meaning from the dictionary or most of the US legal frameworks. From that perspective, the objection to Person being ascribed to non-persons is obvious and warranted.
The US Supreme Court decided in 1886 [1] that it's the 14th amendment.
The general article on Wikipedia [2] has more info about it, and discusses the fact that corporate personhood is an abstraction that represents the rights of the individuals owning or running the company. "Statutes violating their prohibitions in dealing with corporations must necessarily infringe upon the rights of natural persons" and modern cases. That article also discusses how, from the 1920s to the 80s, general corporate personhood wasn't as broad as it is today. It also mentions, at the top, historical instances of the idea.
But to your point, no corporation in the US has full, equal rights to a natural person. It's an abstraction that the legal system does not apply blindly. You could change the phrase "corporate person" to something like "corporate legal entity with a set of rights that overlaps with natural persons" or demand a different approach to the rights of a corporation, but I don't think "you're using that word wrong" will hold much weight with legal professionals.
Title 1 Chapter 1 Section 1 of the US Code begins:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system.
If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment?
How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech.
It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up while golfing with the judges.
Corporations aren’t people in the literal sense which the 13th amendment uses, nobody ever said they were. They just have the ability to do some people things. They can have a bank account or sign a contract. They cannot vote or enlist or do lots of things people can do. (The technical name is ‘juridicial people’ and what they can or cannot do is spelled out in law quite well.)
Money isn’t speech, and no court ever said it was. The ads you buy with money are speech. What’s the difference between a Fox news editorial show or a right-leaning ad on Fox News? (The answer: who pays for it.) If news organizations are just things owned by people, what makes them more worthy of expressing opinions than other things owned by people? Just because they have “news” in their name?
You just think they’re half-assed because you have the cartoony idea of what they are expressed by media that doesn’t like them. They’re quite sensible.
I guess my larger point is that words are manipulated to get to a desired effect in the justice system.
Slavery is defined as the practice of owning a "person" which the 13th amendment prohibits. As corporations are people why couldn't this apply using the same flexible level of logic our court system uses??? Its just picking winners and losers!!!
Slavery in the 13th amendment is not defined at all, and nowhere is there a legal definition of slavery that would include a non-human person.
And the latter is simply you (and others, you didn’t invent it) paraphrasing a ruling inaccurately. I paraphrased it more accurately.
So again, the only word manipulation is going on outside of the legal system and you’re arguing against straw men. The actual legal system (not the carton of it you imagine) is not nonsensical in either case.
Unfortunately the practical effect of whatever policy that comes out of this theorycrafting has left your media landscape an absurd and abject failure. Where the idea of objective truth being open to the highest bidder and allowed to change on a week by week, or day by day basis without challenge.. is a reality Americans now live every day.
If the theory is "sensible", who cares? At some point you do want to connect it to reality and outcomes, no?
Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. The opposite of our media landscape is countries that think they have free speech but really don’t, like most of Europe.
I’ll take having all the information in the world (true or false, purposefully curated for propaganda or organically reported) over any society that locks people up for social media posts deemed “fake”.
I have faith both in the marketplace of ideas leading to the best outcomes, and that the ability to lock people up over false speech will be weaponized eventually.
The American media landscape is the only possible result of true freedom of speech combined with the internet. It’s faaaaar from perfect but I do believe it’ll be the best in the end.
But right now America is factually less free than either Europe or my own country. You simply do not have due process anymore. Most of the protections of your constitution have been interpreted away to nothingness.
I just don't see how these so called valuable principles have actually materially served your people in being able to protect or defend the values you claim to hold.
Faith is fine, but you do need to evaluate ground truth at the end of the day. Outcomes matter.
That’s just propaganda. If we didn’t have due process, Donald Trump would be in jail. Or, if you think he’s the reason we lost it, half the Biden administration would. The idea that the legal system has somehow melted down in the last nine months is just scaremongering.
Norms are being violated, for sure, and the courts are being pushed to determine the bounds of the law. I won’t say I’m a fan of most of it, but it’s a far cry from lack of freedom.
I don’t know what your country is, so I can’t respond, but if you can be locked up over a social media post (assuming reasonable exemptions like direct incitement to violence) you’re not free. You just have been told you are.
The keystone freedom is free speech and almost nowhere else truly has it. It’s a spectrum for sure, and Europe is a lot closer than, say, China, but we’re the far extreme.
Any good outcomes also come from that same freedom of speech. It’s a double-edged sword, for sure. You have to take your anti-vax movement along with your Wikipedia.
> That’s just propaganda. If we didn’t have due process, Donald Trump would be in jail.
Well your country does still offer its protections for the wealthy and powerful. It's just regular people have less of it than we do in freer countries.
> Or, if you think he’s the reason we lost it, half the Biden administration would. The idea that the legal system has somehow melted down in the last nine months is just scaremongering.
I see this as coping, to be honest. Americans simply have been told that they are the vanguard of freedom for so long that they cannot imagine a world where their freedom is somehow lesser than others.
But as someone who grew up in America and emigrated out, I can tell you for a fact that Americans are less free than Canadians.
On average, the Canadian government gives itself less of a leeway to abuse people.
If you insult a police officer in America, that officer can abuse you and take away your rights and the probability of consequences for that officer is far lower than the probability in my country.
My country doesn't have a constitution that protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures, but yet, Americans have less protections from unreasonable search and seizure despite their constitution - due the loophole of civil forfeiture.
In your country, your government can pass a law to criminalize you, and then that makes it legal for the government to turn you into a slave. That's not allowed in my country.
Speedy trials in your country are only reserved for the rich.
Americans simply have less freedom than the rest of the first world. It's extremely hard for them to accept because of the propaganda they've been subject to.
But as someone who grew up all over America, and has seen and lived and experienced more of it than most Americans, I know for a fact that they are wrong.
If you don't have the money to pay for freedoms in America, you have far fewer than someone from my country does.
Yeah again, this is all a cartoon. Cops everywhere now have body cameras on nearly all the time. Freedom of speech gives us the right to video them and they can barely do anything in public anymore without five people doing so. Contempt of cop beatings still exist sometimes I’m sure, everywhere, but it’s hardly a thing most people are exposed to. If we were having this discussion in 1975 I’d grant you this point, it’s dramatically reduced now.
I was prosecuted for a misdemeanor when I was 18 and broke. I got a free lawyer (as the constitution says) who did a great job and the whole thing was over in a month. I was not rich. I don’t know what TV shows make you think our government is just locking people up willy nilly, it isn’t. (Our drug laws lock a lot of people up, but they aren’t that different or more draconian than most places, just the number of people who do drugs is, and there are countries that execute people for drug offenses that are misdemeanors here.)
The government cannot pass a law to criminalize you, criminalizing things is never retroactive. I assume by the slavery thing you mean prison labor. That actually is in the constitution, and is crazy. We’re working on it. Same with asset forfeiture.
The idea that because we have some areas in which we are less free than other countries we are less free in total is ridiculous. The fact that you say things like “Americans don’t have due process” is a strong indicator of internalized propaganda.
And I’m not some flag waving patriot American Exceptionalist by any means, I’ve traveled quite a bit more than most. But the one thing we do best is individual liberties. It’s why we’re where we are in the grand scheme of human history and Canada is basically just our suburb enjoying all of the benefits (national security with next to no defense budget, unlimited free trade a short truck ride away) while avoiding the cost.
Although we are disagreeing, I hope that this is not in an antagonistic sense - I do find this conversation interesting because it's not often the opportunity arises to discuss this topic.
As someone who was raised American, went to American schools, lived and breathed American culture for over the decade I went from child to adult.. moving away and living and breathing Canadian culture has been an enlightening experience.
Getting back to the topic..
These rebuttals really fall flat to my ears. They sound like technicalities that are constructed to paper over the underlying reality. My feelings on this topic aren't from propaganda, but from having experienced how people feel, act, and behave when I was growing up in America.
It's only after I moved to Canada that I realized that most Americans have to live in fear of police. Police are able to break laws at whim, and abuse people's rights, and the mechanism for resource is so inaccessible to the average person that it might as well not exist. I thought this was normal and didn't detract from "freedom" when I was growing up.
Now, this happens in Canada too, but on average they are _less_ able to abuse people. They still do, but the government and society does a better job of ensuring consequences in more of those situations.
The institutionalized pipeline to slavery that exists in America doesn't exist in Canada. Now, this one is something that affected me less on a personal level, because that institutionalized pipeline is targeted largely at black people, and I'm not black.
That said, if I was black, and in America.. the processed plant flower I'm lighting up and enjoying this saturday in my basement would be very much a direct threat to my freedoms. That would be enough, in many parts of America, to brand me as a dangerous threat to society. And it would be enough for my freedoms to be taken away by the state, and then for my labour to be rented out to private companies against my will.
This is not a hypothetical circumstance. This is a reality that tens of thousands of Americans live. This is on the ground reality.
But really for me, the emotional aspect is how people just live in less fear of the government here. Their government, on average, abuses them less. It's less capricious. It's less mean to them. It doesn't step on them as much as the American government steps on Americans.
But you do have to live and breathe it to understand the change in mentality.
> But the one thing we do best is individual liberties
This is a cultural mythology. An earnest review of the evidence shows that America is, in real terms of delivering liberties to its people, at the back of the pack of the cohort of first world nations.
> It’s why we’re where we are in the grand scheme of human history and Canada is basically just our suburb enjoying all of the benefits (national security with next to no defense budget, unlimited free trade a short truck ride away) while avoiding the cost.
I'm not too concerned about the place of Canada in "human history". The human suffering it seems to entail to gain that acclaim seems not really worth it.
You're entirely right about your other points though. Canada has benefited greatly from the US's economic engine. In fact, I think part of the reason Canadians enjoy more freedom than Americans is because of this.
It's adjacent to the American market, but segregated enough to make it a much smaller market. This has historically made it less interesting for powerful commercial interests to come meddle in Canadian political affairs and laws, and over time that means Canada has been able to protect its individual liberties better.
That pressure to undermine freedoms through loopholes, creative interpretation, and just straight up ignoring some of them.. that hasn't been as high in Canada, and that's definitely a circumstantial reality having to do with its proximity to the USA.
"Money is speech" is kind of a misleading interpretation because it comes with all sorts of baggage that people typically infer from a thing "being speech".
Phrased another way: the argument is that limiting one's ability to spend is practically a limitation on their speech (or their ability to reach an audience, which is an important part of speech). If some president can preclude you from buying billboards, or web servers, or soapboxes on which to stand: he has a pretty strong chokehold on your ability to disseminate a political message.
I'm not defending that argument, only saying what it is as I understand it.
The law is very much like a programming language in that it is attempting to abstract a concept from practice, so that it is useful in many applications instead of just one. In both cases these abstractions are always flawed. In the law's case, that's why we have judges.
Except that natural language is imperfect, as are lawmakers, as are lawmaking processes.
Following exclusively the letter of the law, even where unambiguous, is not a win. That's effectively how people are trying to skirt the intent of a law (see: every corporation).
The letter and the spirit are both important. Judges make bad judgments, they also make good judgements. Such is life.
The law has lots of weird terminology. For example they have "exhibits" that are really just some crappy figures in an appendix of someone doing something bad, and not actual exhibits that you can buy tickets to visit.
> A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.
Most English dictionaries define person as a human.
I think the legal concept of person ("legal" or "juristic" person) as applied to corporations is something entirely different that, by unfortunate coincidence, shares the same name.
Isn't this sort of defense a weak argument by the courts. If your abstraction is to override a well known common usage/function of a term, then the abstraction doesn't hold much water?
> If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment?
We simply pass a law saying that the act of incorporating a company is, among other things, punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and the 13th amendment problems go away.
Slaves generally don't get to choose not to participate.
Sports players are as much wage slaves as Hollywood actors or Walmart greeters, albeit with much shorter runways to comfortable lifestyles.
My argument is created to test the original "corporations are people" legality in common law.
- slavery, the owning of people, is prohibited by the 13th amendment.
- the law of the land is that corporations are a type of legal person based on the famous ruling based on the 14th amendment
- corporations are bought and sold, and owned by shareholders. Can they be people if this is so?
obviously there is a problem here with all of the contradictions involved, but thats the point of my argument. The legal system picks and chooses the desired outcome, and doesn't actually pay attention to the words involved.
What Amazon, Azure, and Google are showing with their platform crashes amid layoffs, while they supports governments that are Oppressing's Citizens and Ignoring the Law, is that they do not care about anything other than the bottom line.
They think they have the market captured, but I think what their dwindling quality and ethics are really going to drive is adoption of self hosting, distributed computing frameworks. Nerds are the ones who drove adoption of these platforms, and we can eventually end if we put in the work.
Seriously with container technology, and a bit more work / adoption on distributed compute systems and file storage (IPFS,FileCoin) there is a future where we dont have to use big brothers compute platform. Fuck these guys.
These were my thoughts exactly. I may have my tinfoil hat on, but outages these close together between the largest cloud providers amid social unrest, my wonder is the government / tech companies implementing some update that adds additional spyware / blackout functionality.
I really hope this pushes the internet back to how it used to be, self hosted, privacy, anonymity. I truly hope that's where we're headed, but the masses seem to just want to stay comfortable as long as their show is on TV
All I'm saying Its a complete 360 from the marketing they did to establish their brand... you know, save the world kind of stuff, especially from google.
From 2000-2016 most tech marketing\branding was aimed at some kind of social benefit.
