This might be the new case I buy for my iPhone 3GS! It's built like a tank.
The OtterBox for iPhone™ 3G / 3GS Defender Series™ offers stylish and sophisticated protection in 3 layers. First, a thin, clear membrane covers your Touch Screen to help prevent scratches and dings. Second is a hard, strong Polycarbonate skeleton that surrounds your device. Wrapped around all of this is a Silicone skin that absorbs bump and shock. Included with the case is a ClipStand holster. This case will not fit the 1st Generation iPhone.
The retail price is $49.95 (a little pricey) but amazon has it right now for $31.99 with free shipping and no tax (for most).
Prefer Buy.com? $31.98 with free shipping (CA taxed).


June 7, 2012 | Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
Recent figures from USA Today show that there is concern among manufacturers and regulators that consumers have grown tired of the constant recall notices arriving in their mailboxes. The increased numbers of recalls, while a good thing, is causing consumers to be exhausted and ignore some notices, possibly to their detriment. Last year alone there were some 2,363 product recalls in consumer products, medical devices, drugs and food. This number represents an increase of 14% from just a year before.
The problem is that if consumers are not paying attention to recalls then they become ineffective. The regulators then must come up with new ways to warn consumers about dangerous products that will somehow break through. As a result, consumer protection agencies are trying to vary the methods that they are using to contact consumers. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are now being used by government agencies to get the word out about potential recalls rather than simply mailing notices which are more easily discarded as junk mail. Authorities are not giving up on the more traditional means of contact like telephone calls.
USA Today found that most retailers believe that the existing national recall system is flawed and that the country would benefit from a more uniform system. The FDA and USDA have different standards for recalls, each with its own unique set of requirements. These variances make it difficult for manufacturers and retailers to fully comply with all the specific rules for each recall.
Product recalls should be of concern to all consumers as they can serve as warnings of life-threatening dangers lurking in your own home. Always pay careful attention to any notices you receive as they could save your life or the lives of those you love. If you, or someone you know, have any questions regarding personal injury claims, please feel free to contact the experienced Charlotte, North Carolina personal injury lawyers at Arnold & Smith, PLLC for a free consultation. Call at 704-370-2828.


text:
The New York Knickerbockers
by Cyrus | Sep 23, 2008 | New York Sports, This Day in New York History
This is a week of endings for New York baseball. The Yankees played their last game at Yankee Stadium last night and will move across the street to a new stadium next year. The Mets final season at Shea Stadium also seems also to be coming to its end, though (as of today) they remain in the hunt for both the division title and, failing that, a wild card berth. But when you have to start a rookie pitcher against the National League's best team (the Chicago Cubs, who have already clinched the Central Division title) and that rookie gives up a grand slam to a pitcher; and when the governor of New York, David Patterson, jokes about the unreliability of the Mets' relief pitchers ("The Mets bullpen is gonna kill me. It's not the Fed, it's not AIG, …it's the Mets bullpen.") . . . well, perhaps the handwriting is on the wall.
So it might be a good time for New York fans to find some cheer by remembering the city's association with the beginnings of the game.
One hundred-sixty-five years ago today, on September 23, 1843, a bank clerk named Alexander Joy Cartwright (1820-1892) codified the constitution and by-laws of the New York Knickerbocker Base Ball Club. While still a member of Knickerbocker Engine Company No. 12 during the previous year, Cartwright had been playing regular games of "town ball" on a vacant lot in Manhattan. The by-laws for the New York Knickerbocker were signed by the team's Committee on By-Laws, which included Duncan Curry, the president; William Wheaton, the vice-president; and William Tucker, the secretary and treasurer. The by-laws also contained a set of 20 rules, written down by Cartwright, which were later published in pamphlet form. Many of the Knickerbockers had been members of the Gotham Base Ball Club, which had been formed in 1837, and it is thought that the Knickerbocker Club may have existed informally before its official founding moment.
Members of the New York Knickerbockers baseball team. Alexander Cartwright is in the top row, center. [Source: www.19thcbaseball.com]
Something close to baseball was being played in the New York area since at least 1823. In 2001, George A. Thompson Jr., a research librarian at NYU, discovered two newspaper accounts of a game played in April 1823 in New York City on a site just west of Broadway between what is now Eighth Street and Washington Place (largely occupied, appropriately enough, by buildings belonging to NYU). It seems that both the National Advocate and the New-York Gazette and General Advertiser had

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
LyondellBasell Board Authorizes Dividend Increase of 60 Percent
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands, May 9, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- LyondellBasell (NYSE: LYB) today announced that its Supervisory Board has authorized the company's Management Board to declare a dividend of $0.40 per share, an increase of 60 percent from the $0.25 per share quarterly dividend paid in the first quarter of 2012. The dividend of $0.40 per share will be paid on June 11, 2012 to shareholders of record as of May 21, 2012, subject to the adoption of a resolution by the Management Board, which is expected to occur on May 21.
"The 60 percent dividend increase reflects our significant operational and commercial improvements over the past two years coupled with our most recent debt restructurings. The refinancing of our debt, significant reduction in interests costs and our strong balance sheet and credit metrics support this increase to our previously-targeted range of a 3 - 4 percent dividend yield," said Karyn Ovelmen, LyondellBasell Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
"We believe the increase to $0.40 per share quarterly dividend puts our dividend at an appropriate and sustainable level given our current and future cash needs, balanced with our free cash flow profile. Going forward, we would expect to target sustainable and steady dividend growth over time. With regard to future excess cash, this level of regular dividend provides us the flexibility to continue to invest in the company, pursue disciplined growth and to optimize cash return to shareholders with potential special dividends and/or share buybacks," said Jim Gallogly, LyondellBasell Chief Executive Officer.
LyondellBasell (NYSE: LYB) is one of the world's largest plastics, chemical and refining companies. The company manufactures products at 58 sites in 18 countries. LyondellBasell products and technologies are used to make items that improve the quality of life for people around the world including packaging, electronics, automotive parts, home furnishings, construction materials and biofuels. More information about LyondellBasell can be found at www.lyondellbasell.com.
David A. Harpole +1 713-309-4125
Douglas J. Pike +1 713-309-7141
SOURCE LyondellBasell


text:
Israeli Organization Contests Green Light of EMG Gas Pipeline Acquisition
by Lior Gutman / CTech
An Israeli offshore natural gas rig. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
CTech – Lobby 99, an Israeli not-for-profit organization aiming to negate lobbyist influence over the Israeli parliament, filed a petition to an Israeli court on Sunday against the recent approval of the acquisition of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas (EMG) gas pipeline by Tel Aviv-listed gas company Delek Group and Texas-based Noble Energy.
In 2018, EMED, a company composed of partners Delek, Noble, and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS), signed an agreement to pay $518 million for a 39 percent stake in the currently inoperative Israel-Egypt pipeline owned by EMG. The pipeline connects Israel and Egypt and the deal gives the partners exclusive rights to use and lease the pipe. While in the past the pipeline was used to stream gas from Egypt to Israel, it is soon planned to stream gas in the other direction.
The Israeli regulator approved the acquisition at the end of July, under the condition that if local customers opt to buy gas from Egypt through the pipe in the future, the operators of Israeli natural gas fields Tamar and Leviathan will be required to match any price offered by Egyptian companies. Delek and Noble are the majority holders in both Tamar and Leviathan.
In Sunday's petition, Lobby 99 claims that the merger between EMED and EMG is illegal, and stands to severely harm market competitiveness as it will award the Delek-Noble duopoly control of the only infrastructure for importing natural gas from Egypt to Israel, while also giving the two control of the Israel-to-Egypt export. Lobby 99 is represented by advocate Dror Strum, formerly the general director of the Israel Antitrust Authority, and the petition is backed by an expert opinion written by Shlomi Parizat, formerly the authority's chief economist.
Currently, the potential for importing Egyptian gas into Israel is unclear. The last time the pipe was operational, it ended with a one-sided increase of 45 percent at the expense of the Israeli electricity rate, a series of sabotage explosions during the Arab Spring, and finally a one-sided cancellation of the contract by the Egyptians. Israel was left with no Egyptian gas and the local electricity rate jumped 33 percent to finance solar equipment for Israeli electrical plants.
Lobby 99 told Calcalist that almost 6,000 people have joined the petition, which is being financed by crowdfunding. The lobby chose to oppose the merger not just because it will impact everyone negatively via the electricity rate, but because allowing Israel's most powerful duopoly to bar any potential future competition is an unreasonable decision, Lobby 99 said.


text:
Canlas: Terrorism is everywhere
EVEN before the smoke of gunfire subsided completely, the Commander-in-Chief, President Rodrigo Duterte proudly declared the liberation of Marawi City from terror assault. In saluting our soldiers, especially the fallen ones who dutifully surrendered their lives so that we may live in peace and freedom, the President thankfully conveyed the gratitude of the Filipino people for a job well-done.
The Battle of Marawi is indeed the finest moment for the Filipinos and their soldiers in peacetime history. For together, it re-affirmed their uncompromising commitment that in defense of freedom and national sovereignty dear life itself is worth giving up. That for the cause of Motherland, the difference in political, social and cultural persuasion will not deter the much-needed racial solidarity to vanquish the patrons of violence. The blood spilled and lives lost in Marawi attest to this united stand against terrorism. Surely, the gallantry and patriotism will not be forgotten as the prize for social order and tranquility.
This does not mean that our soldiers are warmongers. In playing the role of General Douglas MacArthur, that much-acclaimed American Factor Gregory Peck said: of all people, soldiers pray for peace because they suffer first the brunt of war particularly when fighting an enemy reared by the modern brainchild of terrorism which does not recognize co-existence in a world nurtured in diversity. Again my snap salute to our soldiers and their civilian counterparts. We will prevail.
For better understanding, reproduced here with is the nature and history of terrorism as essayed by The New Webster's International Encyclopedia: "Terrorism,(is) actual or threatened violence for political ends. The level of terrorism increased markedly in the 1970's as anti-government groups throughout the world turned to violent acts such as bombing, hijacking, kidnapping, and murder. Terrorism attracted increased international attention through the stepped up activities of Palestinians and their allies, who gave up hope of defeating Israel by conventional military tactics after the rout of the Arab nations in the 1967 war. The more active terrorists groups of the period included the Provisional Wing of the Irish Republican Army, the Japanese Red Army (3 of whose members killed 28 people and wounded 76 at Tel Aviv's lad airport in 1972), the Palestinian Black September group (responsible for the deaths of II Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics)…. Terrorists are very hard to catch, however, because their groups are small, highly organized and highly mobile. Additionally/moreover, modern-day terrorism is better-armed, has increased in membership due to unrelenting recruitment finance by wealthy rich sympathizers.
The historical quest of our Filipino brethren in Mindanao is not cessation from Motherland but simply autonomy in charting their economic life using their own resources and judgment. Federalization will certainly address this desire for self-reliance and socio-economic discretion. The reign of terror is fated to fail.
But what also arose my curiosity is that President Duterte after declaring the liberation of Marawi City, he said in passing that terrorism is everywhere. If what the President had in mind refers to that unbridled looting of the public purse as well as the unconscionable greed for profit of unscrupulous businessmen, particularly those in the telecommunication industry, at the expense of powerless clientele, as a form of terrorism, then, I agree with the President. Believing in the political will of the President to likewise liberate Philippine Society from the clutches of bureaucratic and capitalist landlordism, there is optimism that change is coming.
security terrorism Rodrigo Duterte Safety


text:
Q: :GCheckout, :checkhealth in neovim spits out gibberish next to branch name I've plugged fugitive.vim in my init.vim. I have binded my :GCheckout to <leader>gc, and for the config I only have two branches, main and ubuntu. but when I run the above command this is what I get inside the window that pops up.

If I try to delete the branch using <C-d>, this is what I get. This seems to be problem with the fish but I'm not sure how it is messing up as my ls -l /bin/sh gives me /bin/sh -> dash which I guess means that my default shell isn't fish.

I tried doing :checkhealth and found something similar which looks like this

I couldn't find any solution so this is the last resort, hoping to get some help.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Cloud Software Defined Storage
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Reviews
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is #1 ranked solution in top Cloud Migration tools, #1 ranked solution in top Cloud Storage tools, #1 ranked solution in top Public Cloud Storage Services, #1 ranked solution in top Cloud Software Defined Storage tools, and #4 ranked solution in top Cloud Backup tools. PeerSpot users give NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP an average rating of 8 out of 10. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most commonly compared to Azure NetApp Files: NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Azure NetApp Files. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 70% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 28% of all views.
What is NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP?
The leading enterprise-grade storage management solution, delivers secure, proven storage management services and supports up to a capacity of 368TB. Software service supports various use cases, such as: File shares and block-level storage serving NAS (NFS, SMB / CIFS) and SAN (iSCSI) Disaster Recovery, Backup, and Archive DevOps Databases (SQL, Oracle, NoSQL) Cloud Volumes ONTAP is offered in a standard single-node configuration or in a High Availability (HA) configuration.
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP was previously known as ONTAP Cloud, CVO, NetApp CVO.
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Buyer's Guide
Download the NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: January 2022
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Customers
Rohit, AdvacnedMD, D2L, Trinity Mirror, Eidos Media, WireStorm, Cordant Group, JFK Medical Center, ALD Automotive, Healthix, City of Baton Rouge, ON Semiconductor
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Video
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Pricing Advice
What users are saying about NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP pricing:
"If a customer is only using, say, less than 10 terabytes, I don't think CVO would be a good option. A customer using at least 100 or 200 terabytes should get a reasonable price from NetApp."
"Some flexibility around the licensing model would help. The product is licensed based on capacity. Basically, the largest capacity license that you can buy is 368 terabytes. At this point, NetApp is addressing some people's concerns around this."
"Our licensing is based on a yearly subscription. That is an additional cost, but because of the storage efficiencies that the NetApp gives, even with the additional cost of the NetApp license, you still end up saving money versus straight Azure native for storage. It's definitely worth it."
"The pricing of this solution is definitely higher than what the typical Azure Files and AWS solutions charge, but given the features and the stability NetApp has provided, we are okay with it. We are not complaining about the pricing."
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Storage Engineer at a media company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Helps us keep control of storage costs because it's an OpEx-based model
"One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx."
"There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks."
We are predominantly using it as a backup target for our products. We are also doing some CIFS shares to remote sites that don't have their own file server infrastructures.
It gives us flexibility. In a disaster situation, or even in an office relocation, there can be a gap. NetApp CVO allows us to continue to provide service customers with access to their data, even if a physical site is going to be down for a long period of time. It's only really viable if you know a site is going to be down for a long period of time. We've had office relocations and there have been gaps between when the old office closed and the new office opened, during that period of moving stuff over and setting things up. There were a couple of weeks where we were serving the data out of the cloud, rather than out of the physical site. NetApp CVO may have improved our uptime by 1 or 2 percent, because we don't have that much downtime to start with.
It has all the advantages of the real NetApp product. You can provide storage in most of the formats you'd want.
It helps us to keep control of storage costs because it's an OpEx-based model rather than a CapEx-based model. It depends on how you license it. You can have it up and down, almost on an hourly basis. Obviously, we don't do that, we've got it up long-term. But it does have that flexibility to bring up an instance of a client filer for just a short period of time.
It has saved us from having to buy and host another filer somewhere. That would be the only option to achieve the same goal. If we were to buy another filer to provision the capacity we've got in the cloud, the CapEx would probably be at least $200,000, whereas the running costs are not that much. It depends on how you deal with AWS, but we don't pay that kind of money. It probably saves us 75 percent of the cost of buying a filer for real.
One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx. Also, in our case, in Europe, in terms of physical real estate, we are trying to reduce the size of our data centers.
There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks.
I've been using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP for about two years.
The stability has been really good. I don't think we've ever had any major outages. AWS, obviously, doesn't guarantee 100 percent uptime, so I can see that it's not been up since I last restarted it. Rather, it's been up since some AWS event resulted in it migrating to another one of their pieces of hardware. But we've never had it actually crash.
The scalability is good to a point, but there is a hard limit on the capacity. We could, obviously, create another associated instance of it, but it wouldn't be a single name space, and we couldn't do some of the things you can do if you have a lot of multiple, real NetApps. So there are some hard limits to how big a solution you can create.
Day-to-day, it's probably only being used by about a dozen people in our organization, because it is mainly a backup target. There is a small collection of people whose shares live on it, but the majority of the business' files are on the real NetApps on their sites.
It's probably at a size where we're not likely to implement any more. You never know. It's very hard to tell what will go on with our company. But at the moment, it's probably not going to get any larger. We may actually shrink the capacity because we are temporarily storing some stuff for a part of the business that should only be on there for a few months at most, with this COVID.
As an organization, we went ahead wholehearted that anything and everything should be in the cloud — cloud first — and that got tempered a little bit because they started to see the costs. We also hit limitations with some of the software vendors because they're quite small companies and very niche. They don't want to support anything that's in the cloud, so there are limits to what you can put in the cloud.
Their technical support is very good. In the early stages, we would get almost instant online support, because we would go into the Cloud Manager and there would be a chat and we could have a chat session with the engineers who were implementing it on the NetApp side.
As things have progressed, we now need to follow a more formal support model, but we usually get a pretty good response, for general, routine questions, within five or six hours. If it were a major incident, you would get much faster support. We've never had a major incident with it.
It replaced some physical NetApps that were going to be refreshed. One of the reasons we switched was to limit capital expenditure. Another reason was that it was very much a "Let's go and put as much as we possibly can into the cloud" approach. It fell in with that initiative quite well.
The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The challenges we had were only around the security we put on top of AWS. For me, as an engineer, to be able to do things requires another team to do stuff on the network side or to do stuff on my rights within AWS so that I could deploy it and manage it afterwards. But it is relatively straightforward if you're not fighting other complications.
It took us a couple of days to get it up and working the first time. My colleague did one in the US and it took him about half a day. We did one for another part of the business and that took about three or four hours to get up and running.
Initially, we were just doing an evaluation to see what it was like and if we could actually use it. It went from a trial implementation to going live within a month or two, once we realized it was going to do what we wanted to do.
We had four people involved in the implementation. I was involved, as a storage engineer, and we also had one of our client specialists, a network person, and an info-sec person to validate that the network stuff was within their rules. In terms of maintenance, it's just me, but it doesn't really require a lot of attention because it's cloud-based and it's a NetApp. Generally, once you set them up properly, unless you're changing something, they look after themselves.
It was done by just us. Because it was one of the very early implementations of Cloud Volumes ONTAP, we were working with NetApp and their staff were playing the role that a third-party integrator might have played.
We're probably burning about $10,000 a month on it but it's saving us the CapEx and the power and cooling of a real filer. We're likely seeing at least a 50 percent saving.
Choose your disk type properly. Go with the slowest, cheapest disk you can. If you need bigger, faster ones then go for them.
They've got a variety of license schemes. The one we've gone for is where we pay NetApp once a year. They call it the Bring Your Own license scheme. There is a by-the-hour or by-the-month basis from AWS and you can get it that way as well and be billed through AWS. But you may not get the same level of discounts that you would if you were dealing with NetApp directly. If you are committed to having a client filer for an extended period, then go with the NetApp licensing model rather than the AWS-provisioned one.
Ultimately, the more data you save, the more it costs you, because you're paying AWS for the capacity. NetApp is licensed per filer, but there are additional running costs that are paid to AWS. You pay AWS' hosting fee for an EC2 instance, and each one of the disks within the NetApp is EBS storage and you pay AWS for those.
There is potential to save money by moving things off to object storage. The only cost savings we see on it is against having to buy physical hardware.
We looked at third-party hosting with either our own, dedicated hardware or shared NetApp hardware. I wasn't that involved in that evaluation process, but I figure that the costs for the work-around were too high or the solution was too complex for us to go with.
CVO enables us to manage our native cloud storage better than if we used management options provided by the native cloud service. With the native solutions, you don't get any of the advantages of the NetApp in terms of being able to deduplicate and having clear management of the snapshot-ing. Also, at the time, there wasn't an easy way to back up to a cloud NetApp. There was nothing. Now they have a slightly different solution where they'll mount it for you but, at that time, you created your own cloud instance and your own cloud file and you managed that. Now, you can access a solution that is managed by AWS or by NetApp.
It is almost identical to having a real NetApp, and it's just that it's remote and it's in the cloud. Almost anything you can do with NetApp locally you can do with a cloud filer.
Go with the cheapest disks to start with, and if you need the performance you can easily transition to using faster disks.
There are limitations, but in general it's robust and easily managed.
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Amarjeet Singh
Cloud Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Provides all the functionality of traditional NetApp, and data-tiering helps us save money
"The feature which I like the most is that it has the capabilities that the traditional storage system offers. It provides all the functionality. The deduplication and compression work exactly like ONTAP's traditional storage. So people who have experience with that find it very easy to manage."
"When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency."
I work as a cloud architect in the multicloud team. We have customers that run NetApp services like CVS or CVO on Google or AWS or Microsoft Azure. We help them, support them, and we do migrations from their prime workflows to the cloud.
The primary use case is the migration of workloads from on-prem to cloud. We use the SnapMirror functionality to move to GCP, for example. The second use case is that we also have some file services which we need on the cloud platforms. Our customers use file services like NFS and CIFS or SMB to address their requirements.
We save money using CVO because there is a data-tiering concept. There are algorithms that make sure that data which is frequently accessed is kept on the faster disks, and data which is less frequently accessed is stored in a cold tier. Deduplication and compression also provide storage efficiency and savings..
The feature which I like the most is that it has the capabilities that the traditional storage system offers. It provides all the functionality. The deduplication and compression work exactly like ONTAP's traditional storage. So people who have experience with that find it very easy to manage. And, exactly like the traditional NetApp system, it provides you SnapMirror and the Qtree functionality, which means you have the multi-protocol mechanism. That is something that many of the cloud-native file services do not have.
The capacity is also flexible. You can start from a small disk and you can go with a bigger disk size.
CVO is quite well when it comes to use the file services on a cloud-native platform.
It does have some compliance features. If a person is looking for compliance with GDPR, he can use the compliance feature provided by Cloud Volumes ONTAP. Most companies have some kind of compliance software for example, Data Custodian.A second option would be to go with the compliance feature provided by Cloud Volumes ONTAP. You can implement policies that would restrict the usage of data. NetApp doesn't control the data, the data stays with the company.
Currently, Cloud Volumes ONTAP is not a high-availability solution. When you deploy the solution it comes in single-node. It supports a single-node deployment in Google Cloud Platform, but with other cloud providers like Microsoft Azure and Amazon it does offers dual controllers deployment models. However, the RAID protection level isn't quite well designed since it is laid out at the RAID 0 level. So even though you have a dual-controller deployment in place, you do not have high-availability and fault-tolerance in place during a component failure.
NetApp has said it will come out with HA as well, but even if they come out with HA, the way CVO data protection is quite different than a traditional NetApp storage system. Hence, in my opinion It needs to be improvised with RAID protection level on CVO to have better redundancy in place.
In addition to it, when it comes to critical demanding workload or read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the expected performance that some of apps/DBs require for example SAP HANA Database. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not quite fit there. However, It could be quite well worked with other databases, where the requirements are not so stringent or high demanding for write-latency. I don't know if NetApp has done some PoCs or evaluation with the SAP HANA databases so they are certified to use with.
A last thing, it is an unmanaged solution, it means someone who has no storage background or technical experience for them it's quite challenging to manage the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. They may need a NetApp managed-service model so the NetApp support team can help them to maintain or manage or troubleshoot their environment. When you deploy the solution to a customer environment, you shouldn't expect they will have some storage experience. They might be software or application developers but this product would require them to upgrade their knowledge on the storage track. In my opinion NetApp should consider selling the solution with some add-on services model for example CVO Manage Model support service models to support and manage customer CVO infrastructure.
I have been working with Cloud Volumes ONTAP since 2018. We are using two kinds of solutions from NetApp. One is the Cloud Volumes Services managed cloud storage services and second one is Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
The stability is only lacking when you have a problem with the underlying subsystem and the hardware has failed. I have not encountered that problem so far.
When doing tests for some of our LOBs, I realized that if your aggregate goes offline then you would have to do a manual failover. That means if you are using CVO for instances, like VMs or, on the on-prem world if you are doing hybrid-cloud connectivity, then you would have to unmount your disks and mount them back. That would be a disruption.
But when it comes to overall product stability, if you don't have any underlying issues, it works fine. But if you have a subsystem level issue, then you will have a problem.
There are capacity limits. It has a maximum of 368 terabytes.
I have never used technical support from NetApp. I know people there whom I was working with two years back, and they are my points of contact if I need something. I haven't used technical support because if I have issues I directly contact the people I know. They are usually quite responsive. I have not had any problem with the support so far.
I have done the deployment end-to-end for our customers. The CVO setup is quite simple and straightforward.
You need to have a cloud account, a service account, which CVO can be used with for a cloud provider like Google. You cannot download CVO directly from the marketplace, you need to be on the NetApp website. If you have a service account already created, it will authenticate. You just feed it the information. It's a GUI interface. You just click "next" and it will ask you for the information, like "Which network do you want to deploy?" and "What is the name of your machine?" etc. I don't think anybody needs experience to do the set up.
The challenge comes with configuration, such as if you want to do a multi-protocol or an AD integration. Those things are a little bit deep. A person who has already worked on those kinds of things can easily do them. And other than that, the deployment is quite easy.
The deployment time depends on what you feed to the appliance but it should take about 20 to 45 minutes, everything included, except things such as Active Directory integrations or multi-protocols.
There are many people in our company using CVO but, from an architecture standpoint, I am the one who is helping the LOBs. Some LOBs have some experience because they have been using NetApp. But when it comes to the deployment on the cloud, they are not aware of how the service account works.
If a customer is only using, say, less than 10 terabytes, I don't think CVO would be a good option. A customer using at least 100 or 200 terabytes should get a reasonable price from NetApp.
Because we have been a NetApp customer for a long time I think we do get some discounts when we buy this solution from NetApp on a large scale, although I am not involved with the pricing side.
I work with file solutions from other vendors. We have vendors like Elastifile which I used to work with but it was acquired by Google. I also checked a Google-native solution. And Azure has file shares as well as something called NFS Blob, but it also uses the NetApp in the backend. It's a NetApp CVS. It's not like CVO, it's quite different, but it does provide the same functionality, such as file services like CIFS or NFS. But that solution lacks other things. It doesn't work like CVO because CVO provides a lot of features.
CVO provides all the functionality any customer would need on cloud. It's a single solution that covers everything.
It's not a managed solution, so a person who uses this solution should have some prior knowledge using NetApp storage. It is your responsibility to manage the solution.
CVO does provide unified storage, We use CVO's cloud resource performance monitoring. It provides you overall performance stats, such as your disk level, your egress traffic going from the disk, the read/write, random data and sequential data. But for databases, you need specific tools like DB Classify. While CVO does give you information, it doesn't give information at a more granular level. It only provides information from the disk side, such as the IOPS and the throughput you're getting. But there are other things that play a vital role, such as your instance size or type. If your instance-type or size configuration is not properly configured or if it is fighting for resources, you won't get a good performance. In conclusion, it provides a holistic view, but when you want to drill down you need different tools to look at the subsystem level, like the DB or application level.
CVO provides quite good file services that no other cloud provider offers so far, from what I have seen. It has all the mechanisms, such as NFS and SMB and it has multi-protocol. It does provide exactly what a normal storage system provides. The thing it misses is performance/fault tolerance.
Free Report: NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Reviews and More
Learn what your peers think about NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2022.
Infrastructure Consultant - Storage, Global Infrastructure Services at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control
"With NetApp, you can integrate malware scanning or malware protection. This is something valuable that is not offered in SaaS solutions typically."
"If they could include clustering together multiple physical Cloud Volumes ONTAP devices as an option, that could be helpful."
The primary use case is to use NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP for unstructured data storage, both for Windows and Linux-based machines. We use both from an NAS functionality perspective, along with SMB and NFS file shares/exports, for storing unstructured data.
The solution enabled us to deliver on our cloud-first strategy. It also provided us some savings and consolidation capabilities from a volume perspective where we can run with less management. We can run higher volumes of unstructured data and store higher volumes of unstructured data as compared to other solutions.
The data tiering capability
The data efficiencies are valuable, If we want to combine compression and deduplication.
It is valuable to us that it runs natively in Azure.
Using this solution, we are also in control of our backups. In regards to disaster recovery, we don't have to rely on Azure or Microsoft to fail anything over. We are in control of backups and replication (or disaster recovery).
With NetApp, you can integrate malware scanning or malware protection. This is something valuable that is not offered in SaaS solutions typically.
The solution provides us unified storage as long as it's unstructured data that can be accessed through a file share. We are in control of the portability of the data. We are not locked into Azure with this product. For example, if we wanted to go to AWS, there is that capability. If we wanted to pull this data or solution back to on-premises, there's that capability. Therefore, there is some flexibility in the control of the data versus being locked into a non-proprietary solution, e.g., just within Azure.
If they could include clustering together multiple physical Cloud Volumes ONTAP devices as an option, that could be helpful.
The ease of data migration between devices could be improved somewhat. There is already some flexibility which is better than just migrating the data. However, that could potentially be further improved.
Including the evaluation period, it has been over two years.
The stability of this solution has been great. A couple of interruptions that we had were not really related to the product. They were more related to Azure, where we had a couple of issues with actual Azure hosts which run the virtual storage device and Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
There is a team of four people who are in the role of managing and administrating the devices. There are thousands of people who access it.
There is room for growth. We are just in the process of migrating an on-premise system. That will probably service 10,000 users. We started out using it mainly for unstructured data which would be less frequently used or Azure-native. Now, we are at the process of expansion. After using the product for a year and a half, we are comfortable migrating on-premises into our system.
NetApp technical support is good. They are receptive and want to make sure that you succeed in using their product. Overall, their Professional Services, setup, and support for the past couple of years, in comparison to other large companies that I have used in the past (like Microsoft, IBM, or Dell EMC support), has been as good or better than their peers.
We have used the NetApp solution on-premise with one of our outsourcing providers. We have used NetApp before in Canada. In the US, we used the Dell EMC NAS solution. So, we have had some experience with NetApp as our company has used NetApp in the past for years, but those solutions were not entirely cloud-based. Cloud Volumes ONTAP is unique in that it runs the same familiar operating system that you would run on the on-premise NetApp system with some differences and specifics to Azure. There are a lot of synergies, but basically it's the same operating system. A lot of the things work the same as they would using the on-premise NAS. Currently, we use the solution in Asia and North America.
The initial setup is well-documented, so it's fairly straightforward. There are all these aspects where you need to have some understanding of what you want to achieve in the end. You also need to have in mind a final design of what the requirements are. Based on that, the initial setup is well-documented and not overly difficult.
Our initial deployment was a year and a half ago when things were fairly new for NetApp. Our environment was fairly complex because we needed an antivirus integration along with different things, so the initial setup took about two to three weeks. Then, setup of subsequent Cloud Volumes ONTAP devices, as we expanded the solution, would take one to three days. We followed the same steps that we established in the original deployment, and in some cases with a few improvements, incorporating lessons learned.
We knew what capacity we required. We knew that we wanted to configure backups and deploy disaster recovery. We also knew that we wanted antivirus scanning and integration as well as malware protection on the system. Therefore, we identified the requirements, then worked initially with NetApp Professional Services to deploy the solution.
In the past, we were working with outsourcers on-premise. Even compared to just standard Azure or other solutions available, this solution has allowed for probably 50 percent, or in some cases, higher storage savings.
From a scale or scalability perspective, the more data you store, then the more you can save. For example, the more data you can tear down from SSDs (from premium storage down to Azure Blob), then the more you're going to save. Scale certainly matters because as the more data you store, then the higher savings you can achieve.
There are storage efficiencies built into the product. The tiering helps with keeping the storage costs under control, i.e., the tiering from primary storage to Blob storage or object storage helps. Also, the storage efficiencies, deduplication, and compression help to keep storage costs under control. Depending on what solution you are coming off of, a 50 percent savings in storage costs is achievable.
Some flexibility around the licensing model would help. The product is licensed based on capacity. Basically, the largest capacity license that you can buy is 368 terabytes. At this point, NetApp is addressing some people's concerns around this.
I can stack licenses, e.g., two, three, or more 368 terabyte licenses can be stacked. However, I would like to see some more flexibility because you can't remove disks that you added from Azure. You would need to delete a whole disk group. When you have highly utilized Cloud Volumes ONTAP systems, you can get into a situation where you can't remove disks. This is something that I run into, so you need some flexibility with the licensing.
NetApp could perhaps allow temporary bursts of capacity on the 368 terabytes. For example, if I'm rearranging my disk groups or disk aggregates, then I could add to the existing capacity and move my data around within the system to optimize capacity, costs, and performance. After that, I could migrate off the set of disks that the appliance is using currently, move data around, and delete the original source, but still stay under the 368 terabyte capacity. However, to do that data movement, a couple of sets of disks have to be assigned. At the same time, you might temporarily exceed that 368 terabyte limit. Therefore, that is something that could potentially be improved.
I understand why there is a cutoff. Because if you're licensed for 368 terabytes, you should be using 368 terabytes. However, keeping in line with the elastic nature of cloud and flexibility of the cloud, some bursting of that 368 terabyte license capacity should be allowed. I think that would a good idea.
We looked at Azure Files and just regular file servers in Azure. We also looked at a couple of other not well-known vendors who are in the cloud, like SoftNAS. Basically, when we were exploring options in the cloud over two years ago. Now, when we started kind of the journey of trying to see what was available in the cloud over two years ago, nobody had the capabilities of NetApp. To date, I don't find that there is real competition for NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP at the scale that they're doing it at.
While I have been aware of Cloud Volumes ONTAP for probably over three years, it wasn't at the scale or refinement that we needed then. That's partly why we didn't go with that solution earlier. However, it met our requirements by the time we got on it.
The solution provides more granularity and feature-rich options than if we used management options provided by the native cloud service, like Azure.
I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.
JeremyHarrison
Senior Analyst at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
All our data shares and volumes are on one platform making adjustment of share permissions easier than with Azure native
"We're able to use the SnapMirror function and SnapMirror data from our on-prem environment into Azure. That is super-helpful. SnapMirror allows you to take data that exists on one NetApp, on a physical NetApp storage platform, and copy it over to another NetApp storage platform. It's a solid, proven technology, so we don't worry about whether data is getting lost or corrupted during the SnapMirror."
"When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly."
It is managing services in our production environment that are in Azure. It provides file shares, both NFS and CIFS, that are used by other applications that are also in Azure.
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is part of the production environment of our company so the entire company, over 5,000 employees globally, is touching it somehow. It's a part of an application that has data that resides on it and they may consume that application.
Cloud Volumes ONTAP is great because of the storage efficiencies that it provides. When you look at the cost of running Azure native storage versus the cost of Cloud Volumes ONTAP, you end up saving money with Cloud Volumes ONTAP. That's a big win because cost is a huge factor when putting workloads in the cloud. We had a cost estimate survey done, a comparison between the two, and I believe that Cloud Volumes ONTAP saves us close to 30 percent compared to the Azure native costs.
Azure pricing is done in a type of a tier. Once you exceed a certain amount of storage, your cost goes down. So the more data you store, the more you're going to end up saving.
The storage efficiencies from the NetApp platform allow you to do inline deduplication and compaction of data. All of this adds up to using less of the disk in Azure, which adds up to savings.
We have two nodes of the NetApp in Azure, which means we have some fault tolerance. That is helpful because Azure just updates stuff when they want to and you're not always able to stop them or schedule it at a later time. Having two CVO nodes is helpful to keep the business up when Azure is doing their maintenance.
The solution provides unified storage no matter what kind of data you have. We were already using the NetApp platform on our on-premise environments, so it's something we're already familiar with in terms of how to manage permissions on different types of volumes, whether it's an NFS export or a CIFS share. We're able to utilize iSCSI data stores if we need to attach a volume directly to a VM. It allows us to continue to do what we're already familiar with in the NetApp environment. Now we can do them in Azure as well.
It enables us to manage our native cloud storage better than if we used the management options provided by the native cloud service. With CVO, all of your data shares and volumes are on the one NetApp platform. Whether you are adjusting share permissions on an NFS export or a CIFS share, you can do it all from within the NetApp management interface. That's much easier than the Azure native, where you may have to go to two or three different screens to do the same stuff.
The storage efficiencies are something that you don't get on native.
Also, because of the NetApp product, we're able to use the SnapMirror function and SnapMirror data from our on-prem environment into Azure. That is super-helpful. SnapMirror allows you to take data that exists on one NetApp, on a physical NetApp storage platform, and copy it over to another NetApp storage platform. It's a solid, proven technology, so we don't worry about whether data is getting lost or corrupted during the SnapMirror. We are also able to throttle back the speed of the SnapMirror to help our network team that is paying for a data circuit. We're still able to copy data into Azure, but we can manage the transfer cost because we can throttle back the SnapMirror. It's just very solid and reliable. It works.
And all of us IT nerds are already familiar with the NetApp platform so there was not a major learning curve to start using it in Azure.
NetApp also has something called Active IQ Unified Manager, and it gives us performance monitoring of the CVO from an external source. There are several people on my team that utilize the CVO and we each have a personal preference for how we look at data. The Active IQ Unified Manager is a product you can get from NetApp because, once you license your CVO, you are entitled to other tools. CVO does have resource performance monitoring built in, but we primarily utilize the Active IQ Unified Manager.
Beyond that, it provides all the great stuff that the NetApp platform can do, but it's just in the cloud.
I think this is more of a limitation of how it operates in Azure, but the solution is affected by this limitation. There's something about how the different availability zones, the different regions, operate in Azure. It's very difficult to set up complete fault tolerance using multiple CVO nodes and have one node in one region and one node in another region. This is not something that I have dug into myself. I am hearing about this from other IT nerds.
We've been using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP for two years.
We had issues with Azure when they did maintenance on the nodes. They just do their maintenance and it's up to us, the customer, to make sure that our applications are up and data is flowing. When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly.
We have had tickets open with NetApp to have them look into it and try and resolve it. They've made improvements in some ways, but it's still not 100 percent automated for everything to return back. That's an ongoing thing we have to keep an eye on.
It is definitely scalable. You can add more disk to grow your capacity and you have the ability to add more nodes. There's a limit to how many nodes you can add, but you can definitely scale up.
Tech support is good. A lot of it depends on the technician that you get, but if you're not happy with one technician, you can request that it be escalated or you can request that it just be handled by another technician. They're very eager to help and resolve issues.
We had some issues with permissions and with getting the networking correct. But we had a lot of support from NetApp as well as from Azure. As a result, I would not say the setup was straightforward, but we got the help and the support we needed and you can't ask for more than that.
I've always found NetApp support to be accurate and good with their communications. Rolling out this product in Azure, and working with the IT nerds in our company and with Azure nerds, occasionally it does add another layer of who has to be communicated with and who has to do stuff. But my experience with NetApp is that they are responsive and very determined to get situations resolved.
It took us about a week to get everything ironed out and get both nodes functional.
We had done a PoC with a smaller instance of the CVO and the PoC was pretty straightforward. Once we rolled out the production CVO that has two nodes, that's when it was more complicated. We had a plan for getting it deployed and to decide at what point we would say, "Okay, now it's ready for prime time. Now it's ready to be put into production."
For admin of the solution we have less than 10 people, and they're all storage administrator analysts like me.
Our licensing is based on a yearly subscription. That is an additional cost, but because of the storage efficiencies that the NetApp gives, even with the additional cost of the NetApp license, you still end up saving money versus straight Azure native for storage. It's definitely worth it.
Make sure that you can stay operational when Azure is doing their maintenance. Make sure you fully understand how the failover and the give-back process works, so that you can deal with your maintenance.
Shricharan Ganesh
Technical Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Tiering saves us significant costs, and Unified Manager helps resolve issues before they have an impact
"The storage tiering is definitely the most valuable feature... With respect to tiering, the inactive data is pushed to a lower tier where the storage cost is cheap, but the access cost is high."
"It definitely needs improvement with respect to clustering and with respect to more collaborative integrations with Azure. Right now, we have very limited functionalities with Azure, except for storage. If CVO could be integrated with Azure that would help. When there is any sort of maintenance happening in the cloud, it disrupts the service in Cloud Volumes ONTAP."
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is where we host our NAS storage on which we keep our files, et cetera. We have three clusters of CVO, each serving close to 300 terabytes of data. We have our SQL backup workloads and the application data residing in it. We are using the tiering policy, which pushes the inactive data down to cold storage to help save on costs.
Cloud Volumes ONTAP is all cloud-based and we have our workloads on Azure.
At one point we were paying close to $80,000 a month for cloud resources, and now it's down to $25,000 to $30,000 after using the tiering.
Also, using Unified Manager we are able to resolve issues before they have an impact. For example, there were conditions where bulk operations were happening against a particular volume, and our business was also writing the data. We caught it using Unified Manager. The IOPS were low and there was a high latency, close to 1,500 milliseconds. We had a look at exactly what operations were happening and, before the user even reported it, we reached out to the team that was doing the bulk operations to stop whatever process they were running. That's just one example. We have had a lot of occasions where the tool has been really handy when it comes to proactive monitoring.
And it's not only for proactive monitoring. The same tool is also used for a lot of root cause analysis.
The storage tiering is definitely the most valuable feature. With the pay-as-you-go plan, we can choose between standard and premium storage, but we use only premium for high performance. High IOPS and low latencies are the main features of the premium storage. With respect to tiering, the inactive data is pushed to a lower tier where the storage cost is cheap, but the access cost is high.
NetApp also has something called SnapMirror replications and that's how we replicate our data from production to the DR site, for our BCP. It has pretty solid solutioning for the replications so the SnapMirrors are pretty handy when it comes to BCPs.
In terms of cloud resource monitoring, we use Unified Manager and it's pretty cool. It has both Excel-based metrics as well as graphical representations, which give us a clear idea of which particular file systems have performance problems. We can go over the statistical information and it comes in very handy. At the same time, it has an alerting mechanism where any sort of conditions can be configured and alerts are then sent to your mailbox or your mobile SMS.
It definitely needs improvement with respect to clustering and with respect to more collaborative integrations with Azure. Right now, we have very limited functionalities with Azure, except for storage. If CVO could be integrated with Azure that would help. When there is any sort of maintenance happening in the cloud, it disrupts the service in Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
If those could be rectified, that would be really good news because it would reduce the administrative overhead my team and I are facing.
I have been using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP for close to two years now.
It is stable, at least with respect to Azure, which is what we use.
NetApp is scalable. When we initially started with Cloud Volumes ONTAP, it had a hard limit of 378 terabytes as its maximum capacity per cluster. Beyond that you couldn't expand. So we had to spin up another cluster. When that was almost full we had to get a third cluster. But I believe that in the recent build of CVO they have introduced the ability to stack one license on top of another cluster, so you can have infinite data per cluster. So there were challenges, particularly with vertical scalability before, but that has now been fixed in the recent release.
In terms of increasing our usage in the future, we definitely will if required. It gives us the flexibility to perform automations and it has its own encryption tools. Right now, we are using it for one particular region in Europe, but we do have plans to get it out to other regions as well, but that's not going to happen immediately.
We have used their technical support on a lot of occasions and they have been pretty helpful. I'm completely satisfied with the resolutions they have come up with. We have created more than a hundred tickets in the last two years. Those were all submitted initially, when we had an older version of CVO, but now we hardly create tickets with support because our team has the ability to administer it.
We had ONTAP before CVO. We also used Dell Isilon and SoftNAS before we migrated to CVO. We switched because we found that SoftNAS was not stable enough to handle the workloads. We often had problems with the applications.
The initial setup of Cloud Volumes ONTAP is pretty straightforward. We didn't have any sort of difficulties getting it spun up. It was also pretty quick. We had everything needed in Azure. It hardly took us three to four hours to have the entire environment set up and ready.
We did some architectural planning for setting this up and we got all the approvals and licenses well in advance, before we actually configured it.
When it comes to maintenance, it depends on what kind of coverage an organization wants. We are a team of four who administer NetApp clusters alongside the cloud resources. We have roughly 2,000 users.
We worked only with NetApp. We had one architect and one contractor from Professional Services.
Now that we have started using tiering, we could still actually save more costs, but we haven't gone to that specific area. We know it is definitely going to affect the performance if we keep all the data in the cloud tier. That's why we haven't. But Cloud Volumes ONTAP has the flexibility to dump all the data to the cloud tier to save every penny possible.
We have an annual license renewal for all the clusters. The license comes with annual training and with some Professional Services time. We have used all of those. I'm not sure if that's standard or it's an agreement between our organization and NetApp, but that's what we get as a part of our licensing.
The money you can save with CVO depends on what type of configuration an organization needs. They can also push all the data down to the cold tier. The pricing model for the Azure Cool Blob offering is pretty low compared to the premium or the standard. The cost of cold storage would probably be 10 cents per GB.
Very few of the cloud service solution providers have that tiering option. Tiering results in a lot of savings.
NetApp, on the whole, is a whole different tool for me. Two years back, when I started, when I had my hands on it for the first time, I found it pretty interesting. I would note its simplicity. It's simple and, at the same, time very powerful and able to handle any sort of storage workloads.
NetApp is really cool. If your organization is looking for cost savings, NetApp is the way to go.
Overall, I would rate CVO a nine out of 10. We had a lot of problems with NetApp, but those were in the very early stages. And NetApp always promises to upgrade their products and they actually listen to the customer's problems. We have raised a couple of defects with NetApp, and they have always been supportive, getting these resolved as soon as possible.
The NetApp organization, on the whole, is pretty good. They're coming up with go-to-market products like Azure NetApp Files, etc., which is actually the beta version of Azure Sites.
Sr. Systems Architect at a media company with 10,001+ employees
Gives us great control over our data, allowing us to choose in which AWS regions we put our offsite data
"The most valuable features are tiering to S3 and being able to turn it on and off, based on a schedule."
"I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively."
We use NetApp for our on-premise file shares, and we use Cloud Volumes ONTAP as an offsite backup copy.
Being able to deploy in AWS is a big advantage for us. The company I work for was recently spun off as a smaller company. We sold most of our company to a large company and all of our assets went to that company. Then we started building our first data center and we did not have a second data center for our outside copy. This was a great solution in these circumstances.
In general, NetApp provides unified storage, but we mostly use it only for NAS. It gives us great control over our data. We can define which region or zone we put our data in, in AWS. That way, we can strategically place our offsite copies. Instead of putting everything in one place, we now have more freedom to put data wherever we want.
We are also saving at least $100,000 a year on storage costs.
The most valuable features are
tiering to S3
being able to turn it on and off, based on a schedule.
These are valuable because of the effect on cost. All of the data that is stored in AWS is, obviously, very expensive if stored in EBS volumes or spinning disks, but it's pretty cheap in S3, so that makes good financial sense.
For the shutdown and startup, it's the same thing. Since it's a backup copy, we don't need that filer running all the time, so we just shut it down. We only turn it on before the replication starts, and then shut it off after the replication is complete.
One area for improvement is monitoring. Since we are using turn-on and turn-off, based on a schedule, it becomes a little bit difficult to monitor the instance and the replications, etc. If NetApp could implement a feature to monitor it more effectively, that would be helpful.
Also, I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively.
I have been using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP for about one-and-a-half years.
In all the time we've been running it we have had no issues. It's great.
We are not using it at that big of a scale, so right now we do not have any concerns. It's limited to 360 terabytes. In the past, before we sold 80 percent of our company to that large company, we used to have more than 360 terabytes of data. If we still had all that data we would have to build another instance of Cloud Volumes ONTAP. Or, post-sale, if we were to cross that limit we could have to build another instance of Cloud Volumes ONTAP, but we're not there yet. We are using about 25 percent of that limit right now.
Overall, their support team is great. One of the best features about Cloud Volumes ONTAP is that once you open the OnCommand Cloud Manager, there's a tiny chat button at the bottom. You can just send a message to all the experts related to Cloud Volumes ONTAP. That's a great feature.
We used to use two NetApp filers in two different data centers for offsite backup copies. We decided to go with Cloud Volumes ONTAP because after we sold 80 percent of the company, we were left with only one data center. We did not have a second data center to put the second NetApp in, so we went with this solution. It was the perfect solution for our use case.
The initial setup of the solution, in our case, was a little bit complex because we use Terraform to manage our cloud infrastructure. To configure Cloud Volumes ONTAP in combination with Terraform proved a little bit challenging. That's one of the areas for improvement of the solution: NetApp could provide customers with templates of how to manage this infrastructure as a code. The difficulties we encountered were mostly in terms of what components need to be configured in Terraform, as well as how they could be configured.
Overall, our deployment took about a month. We didn't really have a deployment plan for this solution because this was the first time we were deploying it. We had to make it up as we went along, especially because NetApp did not have any documentation on how to implement this using Terraform. We had to come up with that plan.
We did not hire anyone, but the NetApp support team was great. It is just me working on this, in our company.
This is more of a pay-as-you-go model rather than an investment, but we definitely see benefits. If we had to build another NetApp in our on-premise location, whether we used the storage or not, we would just be spending money. The asset would just depreciate, whereas, in the cloud, we only use what we need and we just pay for what we use.
Licensing seems pretty straightforward and then we just pay for the EC2 costs.
Pricing brings up another point in terms of room for improvement. If they could provide some insights into how we could optimize the cost of Cloud Volumes ONTAP in our cloud, that would be great.
There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees. It's the same as what they showed us in the initial deployment.
We did not evaluate other solutions because we use on-premise NetApp. NetApp works best with NetApp.
We did look at other solutions just to see how they were working, but back then, when we were implementing it, they were nowhere even close to as mature as NetApp. We looked at the Dell EMC Isilon but it was not even close to what NetApp was capable of in the cloud. They were not even close to building something in AWS at that point. It was an easy decision.
Be careful while choosing the instance size, and manage the aggregate size as carefully. Otherwise, you'll just end up paying a lot of money. The biggest lesson I have learned from using this is exactly those two things. I noticed that I need to size the instance carefully, and I need to make sure that the EBS volume sizes that I use are not too underutilized.
Sandeep Gawde
Principal Enterprise Architect at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real-time dashboard is excellent for providing support and helps with decision-making at business level
"In terms of administration, the portal which provides the dashboard view is an excellent tool for operations. It gives you volume divisions, usage rates, which division is using how much data, and more. The operations portal is fantastic for the support team."
"The only area for improvement would be some guidance in terms of the future products that NetApp is planning on releasing. I would like to see communication around that or advice such as, "Hey, the world is moving towards this particular trend, and NetApp can help you do that." I do get promotional emails from NetApp, but customer-specific advice would be helpful, based on our use cases."
We store our user documentation repository in NetApp. We are serving multiple divisions, and there are use cases grouped by divisions, by user access rights, et cetera. We also have specific requirements for the backups and restores.
The main use case for us in going with Cloud Volumes ONTAP was to ensure the IOPS or performance. There are other solutions available that are probably more cost-effective than NetApp, but given the criticality of our application, the performance expectations, and the availability, those were the factors that helped us to zero in on the NetApp solution.
In terms of administration, the portal which provides the dashboard view is an excellent tool for operations. It gives you volume divisions, usage rates, which division is using how much data, and more. The operations portal is fantastic for the support team.
Cloud Volumes ONTAP provides unified storage, no matter what kind of data you have. In terms of our data, it's mainly Word and PDF files, but we have a specific use case where applications are using XML files for document management.
The only area for improvement would be some guidance in terms of the future products that NetApp is planning on releasing. I would like to see communication around that or advice such as, "Hey, the world is moving towards this particular trend, and NetApp can help you do that." I do get promotional emails from NetApp, but customer-specific advice would be helpful, based on our use cases.
We started using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP in production in April of this year. But we had been working with the NetApp team before that, from October of 2020, to get the configuration right in the test environment. Overall, we have been using it for about one year and two months.
There has been just one incident since we started using it, in which a node refresh needed to be done. The stability is pretty good with only one incident in 14 months. We're pretty happy with that.
We have been pretty impressed with the scalability because when we started, we had to immediately onboard two more divisions and it was pretty straightforward, once we had the base setup going. We were able to scale it up pretty quickly and we were able to do it on our own.
We are using Cloud Volumes ONTAP daily. Our departments are copying the files on it and sharing them. It's a part of their daily work.
At the project level, we are not looking to expand our usage of NetApp, but at the organizational level, there are plans. They are looking at additional use cases that can be onboarded to NetApp.
After we deployed we had a couple of queries in terms of optimizing uses. We raised a support ticket and the help was available within a couple of hours. They had people on a call supporting us.
We're pretty happy with the support we're getting and with our account manager. Everyone is prompt in responding, so we're quite happy.
How would you rate customer service and support?
We used a typical Windows file share. Then, when we moved to the cloud, we worked with Azure Files. But in terms of performance and stability, we found that NetApp was way ahead of the other solutions.
Overall, the setup process was excellent. It was pretty straightforward but we also had NetApp engineers available and dedicated to us on a call when we were setting it up. To help us get going, there was tremendous support available, which was good.
The setup time was about six hours and there were about two hours during which we had conference calls with the NetApp team.
The NetApp team was very helpful. The engineers worked with us to understand our use cases and advised us on the configurations. They weren't just checking what we were doing but were contributing to the overall setup. That was a good experience.
It's too early to comment on ROI because we're just a little more than one year into a five-year business case. We'll probably see a return in the third or fourth year.
The pricing of this solution is definitely higher than what the typical Azure Files and AWS solutions charge, but given the features and the stability NetApp has provided, we are okay with it. We are not complaining about the pricing.
We looked at Azure Files and the Amazon EFS file system.
The pros for NetApp were definitely the stability, performance, and availability, out-of-the-box. Even Cloud Volumes ONTAP can be set up in HA. With Azure as well as AWS, you have to have your own custom solutions on top of them. Another advantage with NetApp is the admin portal which has a very good dashboard. Because it gives a good view of usage in real time, decisions become easier for the business.
The only challenging part that we faced with NetApp was that it would have been good to have a sandbox available for a PoC scenario. Without it, what we had to do was get a trial license and set it up. With Azure and AWS, you go directly to the console and just provision it. With NetApp, we had that initial period where we had to set it up on a trial license for a month, and when that was getting close to expiring, we had to extend it.
First and foremost, test the use cases where you need availability and performance as the key drivers for a solution. In those scenarios, NetApp is way ahead compared to what the competitors offer. But given the cost of the other solutions, there has to be a three- to five-year view if you are going to go with NetApp. You will not see a return on your investment after six months or one year.
I'm happy with the way it is handling our use cases and meeting our performance requirements.
Last updated: Jan 4, 2022
Infrastructure Architect at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Provides unified storage no matter what kind of data we have
"Lastly, the API and web services are fairly good. That is an important feature too. We write some code to do different things. We have code that runs to make sure that everything is being backed up as we say it is and we try to also detect places where we may have missed a backup."
"I'm very happy with the solution, the only thing that needs improvement is the web services API. It could be a little bit more straightforward. That's my only issue with it. It can get pretty complex."
We use Cloud Volumes ONTAP to back up ONTAP Select instances from our plants and distribution centers to Cloud Volumes ONTAP and Azure. We store a backup solution for all or most sites.
In terms of how this solution has improved my organization, we use a third-party backup solution, like Spectrum Protect from IBM to backup finances. That's not the best way to do it. Our choice was to move from that technology straight to using the same technology for backup, which is essentially NetApp. Cloud Volumes ONTAP is NetApp. It's the same technology which is where the efficiency really is. It's much more efficient than using a third-party solution.
It provides unified storage no matter what kind of data we have. Right now, it's just backing up Volumes but NetApp is a unified solution. In our case, it's really for file storage, NFS or CIFS.
Cloud Volumes ONTAP allows us to keep more backup. We can keep more backup because of the cost of storage in Azure versus what we have in our data center. This is also completely off-site from our data centers. We have two data centers close to each other, but this actually keeps us as an offsite copy too because it's far enough away. It does keep control of our storage costs from a previous backup technology because it's kept in Azure and it's cloud-based storage. It's not our on-premise storage, it's kind of a hybrid cloud solution.
We're saving around 20% on storage.
It is the same technology that we run on our sites. All of the backup functions and recovery are similar. It's the exact same process. From a learning experience, it's the same. If you learn ONTAP itself, then you can do Cloud Volumes ONTAP without an issue.
The main feature of it is what we call "native backup technology." We're not using somebody else's technology backup, we're using NetApp.
The other important part to us is the Cloud Manager. It gives us a single pane of glass to look at the environment. Everything is remote right now but we will be backing up some on-premise very shortly.
Lastly, the API and web services are fairly good. That is an important feature too. We write some code to do different things. We have code that runs to make sure that everything is being backed up as we say it is and we try to also detect places where we may have missed a backup.
I'm very happy with the solution, the only thing that needs improvement is the web services API. It could be a little bit more straightforward. That's my only issue with it. It can get pretty complex.
I have been using Cloud Volumes ONTAP for a year.
So far, we haven't had any downtime.
It scales well. We can add to the license. We have a 100 terabyte license right now, but we can add to it very quickly.
There is very low maintenance because once you deploy it, you run your scripts and you can see what failed and not many things fail. So, it's pretty quick.
We did contact their support initially during the initial install. It was our cloud technical support. We had a resource from them. They were excellent.
We switched to CVO because of the efficiency and architectural consistency because it uses the same technology. NetApp to NetApp is not trying to go to somebody else.
We were backing up Spectrum Protect and we were using SimpliVity backup at one time on the license, but essentially those weren't solutions and we moved totally away from that.
The initial setup was straightforward. You log onto their marketplace and deploy the Cloud Manager. Then it will deploy the actual CVO itself. It's pretty much a point and click. You have to set up some things ahead of time, like your Azure connections if you don't have them. Those can be more complex, but the actual solution itself was fairly straightforward.
There are prerequisites that have to be done like networking to Azure to your cloud and making sure that you have firewall rules in place. Those are more site-specific, like customer-specific issues. It's not really related to CVO directly.
It took about three months to deploy all the sites which are just for North America. This is also deployed within our company and in Asia. We have about 24 sites and we have a 100% adoption rate.
We did the deployment ourselves.
We never really got down to the TCO. We just know that it was at least 20% better. The only reason we would pick it and change everything is that it was cheaper and consistent with our architecture.
We don't think it's that expensive when compared to what we were paying for the previous vendor. This is less expensive. Pricing is good.
My main advice is to get your cloud technical support online. Make sure you have all the prerequisites properly done and you understand how to deploy the Cloud Manager. That's really the main thing.
Anytime we want to deploy new sites, we have to get the network people involved for firewalls because in our case, we're coming from Azure, which is where the CVO is, back into our company's network. The security protection is the most important lesson that you've got to get right. The security of your connections is important.
I would rate NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP a ten out of ten.
See 4 more NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Reviews
Cloud Software Defined Storage Cloud Backup Cloud Migration Cloud Storage Public Cloud Storage Services
Azure NetApp Files vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
VMware vSAN vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
IBM Spectrum Scale
IBM Spectrum Scale vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Portworx Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Amazon S3 vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Red Hat Gluster Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Veeam Backup & Replication vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
CloudEndure Disaster Recovery
CloudEndure Disaster Recovery vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Dell EMC VPLEX
Dell EMC VPLEX vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
DataCore SANsymphony SDS
DataCore SANsymphony SDS vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
HPE StoreVirtual
HPE StoreVirtual vs NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
See all NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP alternatives
Download our free NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.


Published 04/18/2019 03:10:32 pm at 04/18/2019 03:10:32 pm in Using Bleach To Clean Deck.
using bleach to clean deck cleaning and brightening a wood deck with oxygen cleaner dont pressure wash your deck without these tips.
how to clean white plastic deck chairs lovetoknow cleaning deck chair, how to clean and seal a deck howtos diy cleaning your decks crevices, which is the best composite deck cleaner bleach pressure washer which is the best composite deck cleaner bleach pressure washer or resist mist, wood fence cleaner safe oxygen bleach cleans wood and decking wood cleaner ox , how to clean ipe wood decking maintenance guide tips , diy tips for power washing house siding how to power wash siding diy tips for how to power wash siding, bleach to clean concrete deck bleach clean concrete driveway bleach bleach to clean concrete deck , dayton and cincinnati deck clean and seal services using a chlorine bleach not only harms the wood as well as the vegetation surrounding the deck but it doesnt actually clean or remove any stains, wood siding using bleach to clean wood siding using bleach to clean wood siding photos, cleaning and brightening a wood deck with oxygen cleaner dont pressure wash your deck without these tips, green cleaning decks homes green living green cleaning decks.


text:
Кінова́р або цино́бра — важливий низькотемпературний гідротермальний мінерал класу простих сульфідів. Синонім — циніум. Кіновар — одна з найдревніших мінеральних фарб. Основний склад — сульфід ртуті.

Походження назви
Слова «кіновар» і «цинобра» походять від грецького κινναβαρις: форма «кіновар» — запозичення  з середньогрецької, а форма «цинобра» — через латинське і німецьке посередництво ( >  > ). До грецької це слово потрапило з якоїсь східної мови (пор.  — «червоний свинець», «кіновар»). Назви цього мінералу в інших слов'янських мовах можуть бути як запозиченими з грецької (, , ), так з латинської мови: чи безпосередньо з неї (), чи через  (, , , , ).

Загальний опис
Сульфід ртуті ланцюжкової будови HgS. Містить 86,2 % Hg і 13,8 % S, домішки — Se (до 1 %), сліди Те.

Сингонія тригональна.

Руда ртуті.

Твердість 2-3,

Густина 8,0-8,2.

Колір червоний.

Блиск переважно алмазний.

Риса яскраво-червона.

Злом неясно-раковистий.

Крихка.

Поганий провідник електрики.

Діамагнітна.

Кіновар утворює товсто-таблитчаті, ромбоедричні, рідше — призматичні кристали; характерні зернисті агрегати; часто зустрічаються двійники, в тому числі двійники-проростки.

Кіновар типовий мінерал приповерхневих гідротермальних родовищ. Утворюється в лужному середовищі в зв'язку з молодими вулканічними проявами, де міститься разом з антимонітом, піритом, марказитом, реальгаром, арсенопіритом.

В Україні видобувається на Микитівському родовищі (Донбас), є на Закарпатті. Археологічні розкопки свідчать, що тут її добували задовго до нашої ери. Геродот зазначав, що греки отримують червону фарбу від скіфів, які живуть в Причорномор'ї.

Родововища : Альмаден (Іспанія); Авала (Ідрія, Югославія).

Основні методи збагачення — відсадка і флотація при рН 5-7.

Див. також
 Список мінералів
 Метацинабарит
 Історія відкриття і освоєння українських ртутних руд
 Ртутні руди
 Цинобровий колір

Примітки

Література

Посилання
 MSDS for cinnabar
 Dartmouth Toxic Metals Research Program — Mercury
 Cinnabar visual reference
 Топ 9. Найнебезпечніші мінерали на планеті (9 фото)

Сульфіди (мінерали)
Мінерали ртуті
Отруйні мінерали
Алхімічні речовини
Неорганічні пігменти

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


All my life, my mother told me this one Polish saying whenever something unpleasant happened: »Nie ma tego złego co by na dobre nie wyszło«. It means: There is no such bad thing that won't turn into something good eventually.
To me this bears a simple truth: everything, is just a matter of perspective. With time comes distance, and with distance it gets easier to see the same thing from yet another angle.
This saying might be an affirmation for the blindly optimistic, but when I look back at my life, I can't find anything bad that happened to me.
Isn't that quite a positive forecast for what's left to come?


text:
Les robots de service aident les êtres humains, généralement en effectuant un travail sale, ennuyeux, distant, dangereux ou répétitif, y compris les tâches ménagères. Ils sont généralement autonomes et / ou exploités par un système de contrôle intégré, avec des options de dérogation manuelle. Le terme "robot de service" n'a pas de définition technique stricte. L'Organisation internationale de normalisation définit un «robot de service» comme un robot «qui effectue des tâches utiles pour l'homme ou les équipements, à l'exception des applications d'automatisation industrielle».

Les robots de service domestique constituent depuis longtemps un aliment de base de la science-fiction et des visions commerciales du futur. Jusqu'à récemment, nous n'avons pu que spéculer sur ce que pourrait être l'expérience de l'utilisation d'un tel appareil. Les robots de service domestiques actuels, introduits en tant que produits de consommation, nous permettent de concrétiser cette vision.

Selon la norme ISO 8373, les robots exigent «un degré d'autonomie», qui est «la capacité à effectuer des tâches prévues en fonction de l'état actuel et de la détection, sans intervention humaine». Pour les robots de service, cela va d'une autonomie partielle - y compris l'interaction robot humain - à une autonomie totale - sans intervention active du robot humain. Les statistiques de la Fédération internationale de robotique (IFR) pour les robots de service comprennent donc des systèmes basés sur un certain degré d'interaction robot humain ou même une télé-opération complète ainsi que des systèmes entièrement autonomes.

Les robots de service sont classés en fonction de leur utilisation personnelle ou professionnelle. Ils ont de nombreuses formes et structures ainsi que des domaines d'application.

Les types
Les applications possibles des robots pour les tâches humaines sont très répandues. Actuellement, ces robots appartiennent à quelques catégories principales.

Industriel
Les robots de service industriels peuvent être utilisés pour effectuer des tâches simples, telles que l'examen de soudage, ainsi que des tâches plus complexes et plus difficiles en environnement difficile, telles que l'aide au démantèlement de centrales nucléaires.

La Fédération internationale de la robotique a défini les robots industriels comme "un manipulateur multifonctions à commande automatique, reprogrammable, programmable selon trois axes ou plus, qui peuvent être fixes ou mobiles pour être utilisés dans des applications d'automatisation industrielle".

Robots de service de première ligne
Les robots de service sont des interfaces système autonomes et adaptables qui interagissent, communiquent et fournissent des services aux clients d'une entreprise.

National

Les robots domestiques effectuent des tâches que les humains effectuent régulièrement dans des environnements non industriels, tels que le nettoyage des sols, l'entretien des pelouses et l'entretien de la piscine. Les personnes handicapées, ainsi que les personnes âgées, pourront bientôt utiliser des robots de service pour les aider à vivre de manière autonome. Il est également possible d'utiliser certains robots en tant qu'assistants ou maîtres d'hôtel .

Scientifique
Les systèmes robotiques remplissent de nombreuses fonctions, telles que des tâches répétitives effectuées en recherche. Celles-ci vont des tâches répétitives multiples effectuées par les échantillonneurs et séquenceurs de gènes aux systèmes qui peuvent presque remplacer le scientifique dans la conception et la réalisation d'expériences, l'analyse de données et même la formulation d'hypothèses. L'ADAM de l'Université d'Aberystwyth au Pays de Galles peut "faire des hypothèses logiques sur la base des informations qui y sont programmées concernant le métabolisme de la levure et le mode de fonctionnement des protéines et des gènes chez d'autres espèces. Il s'est ensuite efforcé de prouver que ses prédictions étaient correctes. "

Des robots scientifiques autonomes effectuent des tâches que les humains trouveraient difficiles, voire impossibles, des profondeurs océaniques à l'espace extra-atmosphérique. L'Institut océanographique de Woods Hole Sentry peut descendre à  et permet une charge utile plus élevée, car il n'a pas besoin de navire de support, ni de l'oxygène et des autres installations demandées par des navires pilotés par des humains. Les robots dans l'espace comprennent les rovers martiens qui pourraient effectuer des échantillonnages et des photographies dans le dur environnement de l'atmosphère sur Mars.

Exemples
 AMIGO
 Rollin' Justin
 Roomba
 Cosero

Voir également
 Robot domestique

Notes et références

Lectures complémentaires
 Haidegger T, Barreto M, Goncalves P, MK Habib, Ragavan SKV, Li H et al. (2013) Ontologies appliquées et normes pour les robots de service. Systèmes autonomes de robotique 61 (11), 1215-1223.
 Sprenger M, Robots de service Mettler T (2015), Ingénierie des systèmes informatiques et de gestion, 57 (4), 271–274.
 Jochen Wirtz, Paul Patterson, Werner Kunz, Thorsten Gruber, Vinh Nhat Lu, Stefanie Paluch et Antje Martins (2018), «Le meilleur des mondes: des robots de service au premier plan », Journal of Service Management, vol. 29, n ° 5, 907-931, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119

Robot de service
Pages avec des traductions non relues


"Love" token, awarded by dbarratt."Like" token, awarded by He7d3r."Orange Medal" token, awarded by Krinkle."Love" token, awarded by MichaelSchoenitzer.
T122403: tool labs: provide custom domain proxy?
Bawolff raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Bawolff added projects: Security-Team, Toolforge.
Bawolff added subscribers: csteipp, • dpatrick.
It requires a *.tools.wmflabs.org ssl certificate, but otherwise there's no technical reason why this would not be possible.
As for other (non-tools.wmflabs.org) domains -- that's somewhat more involved, because it requires more than a single new certificate. See T122403 for that.
I think tools is the project where this sort of thing would get the most benefit.
The only problem would be that we already have advertised in some places login.tools.wmflabs.org, but that can be moved.
I'll put in a procurement ticket for a new *. ssl cert.
I think many (most?) tools are not coded in a way that they can be served from https://$tool.tools.wmflabs.org/ and https://tools.wmflabs.org/$tool/ at the same time, and I think that is impossible to correctly automatically map one to the other (e. g. fixing absolute links in the served pages themselves as well).
Redirect permanently to https://$tool.wmflabs.org/$path with an explanation why.
Return an error page with information for maintainers on how to enable subdomain hosting for their tool.
unless some flag is specified, but I'm also fine with making it fully opt-in.
I do remember thinking about this last night/this morning and finding another issue that needed to be addressed, but I forgot what the issue was :-(. I believe it was something in the direction of Cross-origin resource sharing, i. e. if there are gadgets, etc. on wikis that are configured to be able to interact with tools.wmflabs.org, but not necessarily *.tools.wmflabs.org.
valhallasw triaged this task as Lowest priority.
Krinkle renamed this task from Allow tools to have their own X.tools.wmflabs.org subdomain to Allow tools to have their own ".tools.wmflabs.org" subdomain.
MichaelSchoenitzer added a subscriber: MichaelSchoenitzer.
I would be very interested in a project to figure out how to use $TOOL.toolforge.org as the default hostname for webservices exposed from the Toolforge Kubernetes cluster. This could give us a chance to implement a better ingress for the cluster, make TLS required (T102367), and fix the URL namespacing issue all together.
bd808 removed a project: Cloud-Services.
As a tool author, I would already be very happy with a purely opt-in solution, and we can worry about making it the default for Kubernetes-hosted tools, requiring TLS, etc. later.
Sufficiently privileged users can see e. g. T211424 for some more details on possible attacks, though I doubt it's the only relevant task.
If I guessed what T211424 is about correctly, T157450 should describe the somewhat-general case. It's linked as the parent task of this task.
Are we supposed to have a CNAME of *.tools.wmflabs.org, or are we going to assign each tool's DNS entries individually? I think after DNS works, we can start playing with domainproxy and see how that will work.
I think a record for *.tools.wmflabs.org (or *.toolforge.org, to avoid conflicts with login.tools.wmflabs.org and other existing subdomains) would be enough, there's no need to make the (non-)existence of a tool known via DNS IMHO. But I'm not sure why you're suggesting a CNAME record – should tools.wmflabs.org be the canonical name?


text:
Anopheles manalangi este o specie de țânțari din genul Anopheles, descrisă de Jose Christopher E. Mendoza în anul 1940.

Este endemică în Filipine. Conform Catalogue of Life specia Anopheles manalangi nu are subspecii cunoscute.

Referințe

Anopheles