Tag Archives: BP

Libertarians are against net neutrality

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/12/libertarians-are-against-net-neutrality.html

This post claims to be by a libertarian in support of net neutrality. As a libertarian, I need to debunk this. “Net neutrality” is a case of one-hand clapping, you rarely hear the competing side, and thus, that side may sound attractive. This post is about the other side, from a libertarian point of view.

That post just repeats the common, and wrong, left-wing talking points. I mean, there might be a libertarian case for some broadband regulation, but this isn’t it.

This thing they call “net neutrality” is just left-wing politics masquerading as some sort of principle. It’s no different than how people claim to be “pro-choice”, yet demand forced vaccinations. Or, it’s no different than how people claim to believe in “traditional marriage” even while they are on their third “traditional marriage”.

Properly defined, “net neutrality” means no discrimination of network traffic. But nobody wants that. A classic example is how most internet connections have faster download speeds than uploads. This discriminates against upload traffic, harming innovation in upload-centric applications like DropBox’s cloud backup or BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file transfer. Yet activists never mention this, or other types of network traffic discrimination, because they no more care about “net neutrality” than Trump or Gingrich care about “traditional marriage”.

Instead, when people say “net neutrality”, they mean “government regulation”. It’s the same old debate between who is the best steward of consumer interest: the free-market or government.

Specifically, in the current debate, they are referring to the Obama-era FCC “Open Internet” order and reclassification of broadband under “Title II” so they can regulate it. Trump’s FCC is putting broadband back to “Title I”, which means the FCC can’t regulate most of its “Open Internet” order.

Don’t be tricked into thinking the “Open Internet” order is anything but intensely politically. The premise behind the order is the Democrat’s firm believe that it’s government who created the Internet, and all innovation, advances, and investment ultimately come from the government. It sees ISPs as inherently deceitful entities who will only serve their own interests, at the expense of consumers, unless the FCC protects consumers.

It says so right in the order itself. It starts with the premise that broadband ISPs are evil, using illegitimate “tactics” to hurt consumers, and continues with similar language throughout the order.

A good contrast to this can be seen in Tim Wu’s non-political original paper in 2003 that coined the term “net neutrality”. Whereas the FCC sees broadband ISPs as enemies of consumers, Wu saw them as allies. His concern was not that ISPs would do evil things, but that they would do stupid things, such as favoring short-term interests over long-term innovation (such as having faster downloads than uploads).

The political depravity of the FCC’s order can be seen in this comment from one of the commissioners who voted for those rules:

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wants to increase the minimum broadband standards far past the new 25Mbps download threshold, up to 100Mbps. “We invented the internet. We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy,” Commissioner Rosenworcel said.

This is indistinguishable from communist rhetoric that credits the Party for everything, as this booklet from North Korea will explain to you.

But what about monopolies? After all, while the free-market may work when there’s competition, it breaks down where there are fewer competitors, oligopolies, and monopolies.

There is some truth to this, in individual cities, there’s often only only a single credible high-speed broadband provider. But this isn’t the issue at stake here. The FCC isn’t proposing light-handed regulation to keep monopolies in check, but heavy-handed regulation that regulates every last decision.

Advocates of FCC regulation keep pointing how broadband monopolies can exploit their renting-seeking positions in order to screw the customer. They keep coming up with ever more bizarre and unlikely scenarios what monopoly power grants the ISPs.

But the never mention the most simplest: that broadband monopolies can just charge customers more money. They imagine instead that these companies will pursue a string of outrageous, evil, and less profitable behaviors to exploit their monopoly position.

The FCC’s reclassification of broadband under Title II gives it full power to regulate ISPs as utilities, including setting prices. The FCC has stepped back from this, promising it won’t go so far as to set prices, that it’s only regulating these evil conspiracy theories. This is kind of bizarre: either broadband ISPs are evilly exploiting their monopoly power or they aren’t. Why stop at regulating only half the evil?

The answer is that the claim “monopoly” power is a deception. It starts with overstating how many monopolies there are to begin with. When it issued its 2015 “Open Internet” order the FCC simultaneously redefined what they meant by “broadband”, upping the speed from 5-mbps to 25-mbps. That’s because while most consumers have multiple choices at 5-mbps, fewer consumers have multiple choices at 25-mbps. It’s a dirty political trick to convince you there is more of a problem than there is.

In any case, their rules still apply to the slower broadband providers, and equally apply to the mobile (cell phone) providers. The US has four mobile phone providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint) and plenty of competition between them. That it’s monopolistic power that the FCC cares about here is a lie. As their Open Internet order clearly shows, the fundamental principle that animates the document is that all corporations, monopolies or not, are treacherous and must be regulated.

“But corporations are indeed evil”, people argue, “see here’s a list of evil things they have done in the past!”

No, those things weren’t evil. They were done because they benefited the customers, not as some sort of secret rent seeking behavior.

For example, one of the more common “net neutrality abuses” that people mention is AT&T’s blocking of FaceTime. I’ve debunked this elsewhere on this blog, but the summary is this: there was no network blocking involved (not a “net neutrality” issue), and the FCC analyzed it and decided it was in the best interests of the consumer. It’s disingenuous to claim it’s an evil that justifies FCC actions when the FCC itself declared it not evil and took no action. It’s disingenuous to cite the “net neutrality” principle that all network traffic must be treated when, in fact, the network did treat all the traffic equally.

Another frequently cited abuse is Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent.Comcast did this because Netflix users were complaining. Like all streaming video, Netflix backs off to slower speed (and poorer quality) when it experiences congestion. BitTorrent, uniquely among applications, never backs off. As most applications become slower and slower, BitTorrent just speeds up, consuming all available bandwidth. This is especially problematic when there’s limited upload bandwidth available. Thus, Comcast throttled BitTorrent during prime time TV viewing hours when the network was already overloaded by Netflix and other streams. BitTorrent users wouldn’t mind this throttling, because it often took days to download a big file anyway.

When the FCC took action, Comcast stopped the throttling and imposed bandwidth caps instead. This was a worse solution for everyone. It penalized heavy Netflix viewers, and prevented BitTorrent users from large downloads. Even though BitTorrent users were seen as the victims of this throttling, they’d vastly prefer the throttling over the bandwidth caps.

In both the FaceTime and BitTorrent cases, the issue was “network management”. AT&T had no competing video calling service, Comcast had no competing download service. They were only reacting to the fact their networks were overloaded, and did appropriate things to solve the problem.

Mobile carriers still struggle with the “network management” issue. While their networks are fast, they are still of low capacity, and quickly degrade under heavy use. They are looking for tricks in order to reduce usage while giving consumers maximum utility.

The biggest concern is video. It’s problematic because it’s designed to consume as much bandwidth as it can, throttling itself only when it experiences congestion. This is what you probably want when watching Netflix at the highest possible quality, but it’s bad when confronted with mobile bandwidth caps.

With small mobile devices, you don’t want as much quality anyway. You want the video degraded to lower quality, and lower bandwidth, all the time.

That’s the reasoning behind T-Mobile’s offerings. They offer an unlimited video plan in conjunction with the biggest video providers (Netflix, YouTube, etc.). The catch is that when congestion occurs, they’ll throttle it to lower quality. In other words, they give their bandwidth to all the other phones in your area first, then give you as much of the leftover bandwidth as you want for video.

While it sounds like T-Mobile is doing something evil, “zero-rating” certain video providers and degrading video quality, the FCC allows this, because they recognize it’s in the customer interest.

Mobile providers especially have great interest in more innovation in this area, in order to conserve precious bandwidth, but they are finding it costly. They can’t just innovate, but must ask the FCC permission first. And with the new heavy handed FCC rules, they’ve become hostile to this innovation. This attitude is highlighted by the statement from the “Open Internet” order:

And consumers must be protected, for example from mobile commercial practices masquerading as “reasonable network management.”

This is a clear declaration that free-market doesn’t work and won’t correct abuses, and that that mobile companies are treacherous and will do evil things without FCC oversight.

Conclusion

Ignoring the rhetoric for the moment, the debate comes down to simple left-wing authoritarianism and libertarian principles. The Obama administration created a regulatory regime under clear Democrat principles, and the Trump administration is rolling it back to more free-market principles. There is no principle at stake here, certainly nothing to do with a technical definition of “net neutrality”.

The 2015 “Open Internet” order is not about “treating network traffic neutrally”, because it doesn’t do that. Instead, it’s purely a left-wing document that claims corporations cannot be trusted, must be regulated, and that innovation and prosperity comes from the regulators and not the free market.

It’s not about monopolistic power. The primary targets of regulation are the mobile broadband providers, where there is plenty of competition, and who have the most “network management” issues. Even if it were just about wired broadband (like Comcast), it’s still ignoring the primary ways monopolies profit (raising prices) and instead focuses on bizarre and unlikely ways of rent seeking.

If you are a libertarian who nonetheless believes in this “net neutrality” slogan, you’ve got to do better than mindlessly repeating the arguments of the left-wing. The term itself, “net neutrality”, is just a slogan, varying from person to person, from moment to moment. You have to be more specific. If you truly believe in the “net neutrality” technical principle that all traffic should be treated equally, then you’ll want a rewrite of the “Open Internet” order.

In the end, while libertarians may still support some form of broadband regulation, it’s impossible to reconcile libertarianism with the 2015 “Open Internet”, or the vague things people mean by the slogan “net neutrality”.

[$] A thorough introduction to eBPF

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/740157/rss

In his linux.conf.au
2017 talk [YouTube]
on the eBPF in-kernel virtual machine, Brendan Gregg
proclaimed that “super powers have finally come to Linux”. Getting
eBPF to that point has been a long road of evolution and design. While
eBPF was originally used for network packet filtering, it turns out
that running user-space code inside a sanity-checking virtual machine
is a powerful tool for kernel developers and production engineers.

Over time, new eBPF users have appeared to take advantage of its
performance and convenience. This article explains how eBPF evolved
how it works, and how it is used in the kernel.

New Piracy Scaremongering Video Depicts ‘Dangerous’ Raspberry Pi

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/new-piracy-scaremongering-video-depicts-dangerous-raspberry-pi-171202/

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you’ll be aware that online streaming of video is a massive deal right now.

In addition to the successes of Netflix and Amazon Prime, for example, unauthorized sources are also getting a piece of the digital action.

Of course, entertainment industry groups hate this and are quite understandably trying to do something about it. Few people have a really good argument as to why they shouldn’t but recent tactics by some video-affiliated groups are really starting to wear thin.

From the mouth of Hollywood itself, the trending worldwide anti-piracy message is that piracy is dangerous. Torrent sites carry viruses that will kill your computer, streaming sites carry malware that will steal your identity, and ISDs (that’s ‘Illegal Streaming Devices’, apparently) can burn down your home, kill you, and corrupt your children.

If anyone is still taking notice of these overblown doomsday messages, here’s another one. Brought to you by the Hollywood-funded Digital Citizens Alliance, the new video rams home the message – the exact same message in fact – that set-top boxes providing the latest content for free are a threat to, well, just about everything.

While the message is probably getting a little old now, it’s worth noting the big reveal at ten seconds into the video, where the evil pirate box is introduced to the viewer.

As reproduced in the left-hand image below, it is a blatantly obvious recreation of the totally content-neutral Raspberry Pi, the affordable small computer from the UK. Granted, people sometimes use it for Kodi (the image on the right shows a Kodi-themed Raspberry Pi case, created by official Kodi team partner FLIRC) but its overwhelming uses have nothing to do with the media center, or indeed piracy.

Disreputable and dangerous device? Of course not

So alongside all the scary messages, the video succeeds in demonizing a perfectly innocent and safe device of which more than 15 million have been sold, many of them directly to schools. Since the device is so globally recognizable, it’s a not inconsiderable error.

It’s a topic that the Kodi team itself vented over earlier this week, noting how the British tabloid media presented the recent wave of “Kodi Boxes Can Kill You” click-bait articles alongside pictures of the Raspberry Pi.

“Instead of showing one of the many thousands of generic black boxes sold without the legally required CE/UL marks, the media mainly chose to depict a legitimate Rasbperry Pi clothed in a very familiar Kodi case. The Pis originate from Cambridge, UK, and have been rigorously certified,” the team complain.

“We’re also super-huge fans of the Raspberry Pi Foundation, and the proceeds of Pi board sales fund the awesome work they do to promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education in schools. The Kodi FLIRC case has also been a hit with our Raspberry Pi users and sales contribute towards the cost of events like Kodi DevCon.”

“It’s insulting, and potentially harmful, to see two successful (and safe) products being wrongly presented for the sake of a headline,” they conclude.

Indeed, it seems that both press and the entertainment industry groups that feed them have been playing fast and loose recently, with the Raspberry Pi getting a particularly raw deal.

Still, if it scares away some pirates, that’s the main thing….

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

[$] BPF-based error injection for the kernel

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/740146/rss

Diligent developers do their best to anticipate things that can go wrong
and write appropriate error-handling code. Unfortunately, error-handling
code is especially hard to test and, as a result, often goes untested; the
code meant to deal with errors, in other words, is likely to contain errors
itself. One way of finding those bugs is to inject errors into a running
system and watching how it responds; the kernel may soon have a new
mechanism for doing this sort of injection.

Warrant Protections against Police Searches of Our Data

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/11/warrant_protect.html

The cell phones we carry with us constantly are the most perfect surveillance device ever invented, and our laws haven’t caught up to that reality. That might change soon.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with profound implications on your security and privacy in the coming years. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unlawful search and seizure is a vital right that protects us all from police overreach, and the way the courts interpret it is increasingly nonsensical in our computerized and networked world. The Supreme Court can either update current law to reflect the world, or it can further solidify an unnecessary and dangerous police power.

The case centers on cell phone location data and whether the police need a warrant to get it, or if they can use a simple subpoena, which is easier to obtain. Current Fourth Amendment doctrine holds that you lose all privacy protections over any data you willingly share with a third party. Your cellular provider, under this interpretation, is a third party with whom you’ve willingly shared your movements, 24 hours a day, going back months — even though you don’t really have any choice about whether to share with them. So police can request records of where you’ve been from cell carriers without any judicial oversight. The case before the court, Carpenter v. United States, could change that.

Traditionally, information that was most precious to us was physically close to us. It was on our bodies, in our homes and offices, in our cars. Because of that, the courts gave that information extra protections. Information that we stored far away from us, or gave to other people, afforded fewer protections. Police searches have been governed by the “third-party doctrine,” which explicitly says that information we share with others is not considered private.

The Internet has turned that thinking upside-down. Our cell phones know who we talk to and, if we’re talking via text or e-mail, what we say. They track our location constantly, so they know where we live and work. Because they’re the first and last thing we check every day, they know when we go to sleep and when we wake up. Because everyone has one, they know whom we sleep with. And because of how those phones work, all that information is naturally shared with third parties.

More generally, all our data is literally stored on computers belonging to other people. It’s our e-mail, text messages, photos, Google docs, and more ­ all in the cloud. We store it there not because it’s unimportant, but precisely because it is important. And as the Internet of Things computerizes the rest our lives, even more data will be collected by other people: data from our health trackers and medical devices, data from our home sensors and appliances, data from Internet-connected “listeners” like Alexa, Siri, and your voice-activated television.

All this data will be collected and saved by third parties, sometimes for years. The result is a detailed dossier of your activities more complete than any private investigator –­ or police officer –­ could possibly collect by following you around.

The issue here is not whether the police should be allowed to use that data to help solve crimes. Of course they should. The issue is whether that information should be protected by the warrant process that requires the police to have probable cause to investigate you and get approval by a court.

Warrants are a security mechanism. They prevent the police from abusing their authority to investigate someone they have no reason to suspect of a crime. They prevent the police from going on “fishing expeditions.” They protect our rights and liberties, even as we willingly give up our privacy to the legitimate needs of law enforcement.

The third-party doctrine never made a lot of sense. Just because I share an intimate secret with my spouse, friend, or doctor doesn’t mean that I no longer consider it private. It makes even less sense in today’s hyper-connected world. It’s long past time the Supreme Court recognized that a months’-long history of my movements is private, and my e-mails and other personal data deserve the same protections, whether they’re on my laptop or on Google’s servers.

This essay previously appeared in the Washington Post.

Details on the case. Two opinion pieces.

I signed on to two amicus briefs on the case.

EDITED TO ADD (12/1): Good commentary on the Supreme Court oral arguments.

H1 Instances – Fast, Dense Storage for Big Data Applications

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-h1-instances-fast-dense-storage-for-big-data-applications/

The scale of AWS and the diversity of our customer base gives us the opportunity to create EC2 instance types that are purpose-built for many different types of workloads. For example, a number of popular big data use cases depend on high-speed, sequential access to multiple terabytes of data. Our customers want to build and run very large MapReduce clusters, host distributed file systems, use Apache Kafka to process voluminous log files, and so forth.

New H1 Instances
The new H1 instances are designed specifically for this use case. In comparison to the existing D2 (dense storage) instances, the H1 instances provide more vCPUs and more memory per terabyte of local magnetic storage, along with increased network bandwidth, giving you the power to address more complex challenges with a nicely balanced mix of resources.

The instances are based on Intel Xeon E5-2686 v4 processors running at a base clock frequency of 2.3 GHz and come in four instance sizes (all VPC-only and HVM-only):

Instance Name vCPUs
RAM
Local Storage Network Bandwidth
h1.2xlarge 8 32 GiB 2 TB Up to 10 Gbps
h1.4xlarge 16 64 GiB 4 TB Up to 10 Gbps
h1.8xlarge 32 128 GiB 8 TB 10 Gbps
h1.16xlarge 64 256 GiB 16 TB 25 Gbps

The two largest sizes support Intel Turbo and CPU power management, with all-core Turbo at 2.7 GHz and single-core Turbo at 3.0 GHz.

Local storage is optimized to deliver high throughput for sequential I/O; you can expect to transfer up to 1.15 gigabytes per second if you use a 2 megabyte block size. The storage is encrypted at rest using 256-bit XTS-AES and one-time keys.

Moving large amounts of data on and off of these instances is facilitated by the use of Enhanced Networking, giving you up to 25 Gbps of network bandwith within Placement Groups.

Launch One Today
H1 instances are available today in the US East (Northern Virginia), US West (Oregon), US East (Ohio), and EU (Ireland) Regions. You can launch them in On-Demand or Spot Form. Dedicated Hosts, Dedicated Instances, and Reserved Instances (both 1-year and 3-year) are also available.

Jeff;

M5 – The Next Generation of General-Purpose EC2 Instances

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/m5-the-next-generation-of-general-purpose-ec2-instances/

I always advise new EC2 users to start with our general-purpose instances, run some stress tests, and to get a really good feel for the compute, memory, and networking profile of their application before taking a look at other instance types. With a broad selection of instances optimized for compute, memory, and storage, our customers have many options and the flexibility to choose the instance type that is the best fit for their needs.

As you can see from my EC2 Instance History post, the general-purpose (M) instances go all the way back to 2006 when we launched the m1.small. We continued to evolve along this branch of our family tree, launching the the M2 (2009), M3 (2012), and the M4 (2015) instances. Our customers use the general-purpose instances to run web & app servers, host enterprise applications, support online games, and build cache fleets.

New M5 Instances
Today we are taking the next step forward with the launch of our new M5 instances. These instances benefit from our commitment to continued innovation and offer even better price-performance than their predecessors. Based on Custom Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8175M series processors running at 2.5 GHz, the M5 instances are designed for highly demanding workloads and will deliver 14% better price/performance than the M4 instances on a per-core basis. Applications that use the AVX-512 instructions will crank out twice as many FLOPS per core. We’ve also added a new size at the high-end, giving you even more options.

Here are the M5 instances (all VPC-only, HVM-only, and EBS-Optimized):

Instance Name vCPUs
RAM
Network Bandwidth EBS-Optimized Bandwidth
m5.large 2 8 GiB Up to 10 Gbps Up to 2120 Mbps
m5.xlarge 4 16 GiB Up to 10 Gbps Up to 2120 Mbps
m5.2xlarge 8 32 GiB Up to 10 Gbps Up to 2120 Mbps
m5.4xlarge 16 64 GiB Up to 10 Gbps 2120 Mbps
m5.12xlarge 48 192 GiB 10 Gbps 5000 Mbps
m5.24xlarge 96 384 GiB 25 Gbps 10000 Mbps

At the top end of the lineup, the m5.24xlarge is second only to the X instances when it comes to vCPU count, giving you more room to scale up and to consolidate workloads. The instances support Enhanced Networking, and can deliver up to 25 Gbps when used within a Placement Group.

In addition to dedicated, EBS-Optimized bandwidth to EBS, access to EBS storage is enhanced by the use of NVMe (you’ll need to install the proper drivers if you are using older AMIs). The combination of more bandwidth and NVMe will increase the amount of data that your M5 instances can chew through.

Launch One Today
You can launch M5 instances today in the US East (Northern Virginia), US West (Oregon), and EU (Ireland) Regions in On-Demand and Spot form (Reserved Instances are also available), with additional Regions in the works.

One quick note: the current NVMe driver is not optimized for high-performance sequential workloads and we don’t recommend the use of M5 instances in conjunction with sc1 or st1 volumes. We are aware of this issue and have been working to optimize the driver for this important use case.

Jeff;

 

 

Amazon EC2 Bare Metal Instances with Direct Access to Hardware

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-ec2-bare-metal-instances-with-direct-access-to-hardware/

When customers come to us with new and unique requirements for AWS, we listen closely, ask lots of questions, and do our best to understand and address their needs. When we do this, we make the resulting service or feature generally available; we do not build one-offs or “snowflakes” for individual customers. That model is messy and hard to scale and is not the way we work.

Instead, every AWS customer has access to whatever it is that we build, and everyone benefits. VMware Cloud on AWS is a good example of this strategy in action. They told us that they wanted to run their virtualization stack directly on the hardware, within the AWS Cloud, giving their customers access to the elasticity, security, and reliability (not to mention the broad array of services) that AWS offers.

We knew that other customers also had interesting use cases for bare metal hardware and didn’t want to take the performance hit of nested virtualization. They wanted access to the physical resources for applications that take advantage of low-level hardware features such as performance counters and Intel® VT that are not always available or fully supported in virtualized environments, and also for applications intended to run directly on the hardware or licensed and supported for use in non-virtualized environments.

Our multi-year effort to move networking, storage, and other EC2 features out of our virtualization platform and into dedicated hardware was already well underway and provided the perfect foundation for a possible solution. This work, as I described in Now Available – Compute-Intensive C5 Instances for Amazon EC2, includes a set of dedicated hardware accelerators.

Now that we have provided VMware with the bare metal access that they requested, we are doing the same for all AWS customers. I’m really looking forward to seeing what you can do with them!

New Bare Metal Instances
Today we are launching a public preview the i3.metal instance, the first in a series of EC2 instances that offer the best of both worlds, allowing the operating system to run directly on the underlying hardware while still providing access to all of the benefits of the cloud. The instance gives you direct access to the processor and other hardware, and has the following specifications:

  • Processing – Two Intel Xeon E5-2686 v4 processors running at 2.3 GHz, with a total of 36 hyperthreaded cores (72 logical processors).
  • Memory – 512 GiB.
  • Storage – 15.2 terabytes of local, SSD-based NVMe storage.
  • Network – 25 Gbps of ENA-based enhanced networking.

Bare Metal instances are full-fledged members of the EC2 family and can take advantage of Elastic Load Balancing, Auto Scaling, Amazon CloudWatch, Auto Recovery, and so forth. They can also access the full suite of AWS database, IoT, mobile, analytics, artificial intelligence, and security services.

Previewing Now
We are launching a public preview of the Bare Metal instances today; please sign up now if you want to try them out.

You can now bring your specialized applications or your own stack of virtualized components to AWS and run them on Bare Metal instances. If you are using or thinking about using containers, these instances make a great host for CoreOS.

An AMI that works on one of the new C5 instances should also work on an I3 Bare Metal Instance. It must have the ENA and NVMe drivers, and must be tagged for ENA.

Jeff;

 

7 tools for analyzing performance in Linux with bcc/BPF (opensource.com)

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/739861/rss

Brendan Gregg introduces a
set of BPF-based tracing tools
on opensource.com.
Traditional analysis of filesystem performance focuses on block I/O
statistics—what you commonly see printed by the iostat(1) tool and plotted
by many performance-monitoring GUIs. Those statistics show how the disks
are performing, but not really the filesystem. Often you care more about
the filesystem’s performance than the disks, since it’s the filesystem that
applications make requests to and wait for. And the performance of
filesystems can be quite different from that of disks! Filesystems may
serve reads entirely from memory cache and also populate that cache via a
read-ahead algorithm and for write-back caching. xfsslower shows filesystem
performance—what the applications directly experience.

Amazon EC2 Update – X1e Instances in Five More Sizes and a Stronger SLA

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-ec2-update-x1e-instances-in-five-more-sizes-and-a-stronger-sla/

Earlier this year we launched the x1e.32xlarge instances in four AWS Regions with 4 TB of memory. Today, two months after that launch, customers are using these instances to run high-performance relational and NoSQL databases, in-memory databases, and other enterprise applications that are able to take advantage of large amounts of memory.

Five More Sizes of X1e
I am happy to announce that we are extending the memory-optimized X1e family with five additional instance sizes. Here’s the lineup:

Model vCPUs Memory (GiB) SSD Storage (GB) Networking Performance
x1e.xlarge 4 122 120 Up to 10 Gbps
x1e.2xlarge 8 244 240 Up to 10 Gbps
x1e.4xlarge 16 488 480 Up to 10 Gbps
x1e.8xlarge 32 976 960 Up to 10 Gbps
x1e.16xlarge 64 1,952 1,920 10 Gbps
x1e.32xlarge 128 3,904 3,840 25 Gbps

The instances are powered by quad socket Intel® Xeon® E7 8880 processors running at 2.3 GHz, with large L3 caches and plenty of memory bandwidth. ENA networking and EBS optimization are standard, with up to 14 Gbps of dedicated throughput (depending on instance size) to EBS.

As part of today’s launch we are also making all sizes of X1e available in the Asia Pacific (Sydney) Region. This means that you can now launch them in On-Demand and Reserved Instance form in the US East (Northern Virginia), US West (Oregon), EU (Ireland), Asia Pacific (Tokyo), and Asia Pacific (Sydney) Regions.

Stronger EC2 SLA
I also have another piece of good news!

Effective immediately, we are increasing the EC2 Service Level Agreement (SLA) for both EC2 and EBS to 99.99%, for all regions and for all AWS customers. This change was made possible by our continuous investment in infrastructure and quality of service, along with our focus on operational excellence.

Jeff;

Center For Justice Wants Court to Unveil Copyright Trolling Secrets

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/center-for-justice-wants-court-to-unveil-copyright-trolling-secrets-171116/

Mass-piracy lawsuits have been plaguing the U.S. for years, targeting hundreds of thousands of alleged downloaders.

While the numbers are massive, there are only a few so-called “copyright trolling” operations running the show.

These are copyright holders, working together with lawyers and piracy tracking firms, trying to extract cash settlements from alleged subscribers.

Getting a settlement is also what the makers of the “Elf-Man” movie tried when they targeted Ryan Lamberson of Spokane Valley, Washington. Unlike most defendants, however, Lamberson put up a fight, questioning the validity of the evidence. After the filmmaker pulled out, the accused pirate ended up winning $100,000 in attorney fees.

All this happened three years ago but it appears that there might be more trouble in store for Elf-Man and related companies.

The Washington non-profit organization Center for Justice (CFJ) recently filed a motion to intervene in the case. The group, which aims to protect “the wider community from abuse by the moneyed few,” has asked the court to unseal several documents that could reveal more about how these copyright trolls operate.

The non-profit asks the court to open up several filings to the public that may reveal how film companies, investigators, and lawyers coordinated an illegal settlement factory.

“The CFJ’s position is simple: if foreign data collectors and local lawyers are feeding on the subpoena power of federal courts to extract settlements from innocent people, then the public deserves to know.

“What makes this case so important is that, based on the unsealed exhibits and declarations, it appears that a German operation is providing the ‘investigators’ and ‘experts’ that claim to identify infringing activities, but its investigators apparently have a direct financial interest and the ‘software’ is questionable at best,” CFJ adds.

Another problem mentioned by the non-profit organization is that not all defense lawyers are familiar with these ‘trolling’ cases. They sometimes need dozens of hours to research them, which costs the defendant more than the cash settlement deal offered by the copyright holder.

As a result, paying off the trolls may seem like the most logical and safe option to the accused, even when they are innocent.

CFJ hopes that the sealed documents will help to expose the copyright trolls’ “mushrooming” enterprise, not just in this particular case, but also in many similar cases where people are pressured into settling.

“The entire lawsuit may have been a sham. Which is where CFJ comes in. Money and information remain the most significant hurdles for those being named as defendants in lawsuits like this one who receive threatening settlement letters like the one Mr. Lamberson received.

“CFJ’s goal is to level the playing field and reduce the plaintiffs’ informational advantage. The common-law right of access to judicial records is especially important where, as here, the copyright ‘trolling’ risks infecting the judicial system,” the non-profit adds.

The recent filings were spotted by SJD from Fight Copyright Trolls, who rightfully notes that we still have to see whether the documents will be made public, or not. If they are indeed unsealed, it may trigger a response from other accused pirates, perhaps even a class action suit.

—–

Center For Justice’s full motion to intervene is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Sony & Warner Sue TuneIn For Copyright Infringement in UK High Court

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/sony-warner-sue-tunein-for-copyright-infringement-in-uk-high-court-171109/

When it comes to providing digital online audio content, TuneIn is one of the world’s giants.

Whether music, news, sport or just chat, TuneIn provides more than 120,000 radio stations and five million podcasts to 75,000,000 global users, both for free and via a premium tier service.

Accessible from devices including cellphones, tablets, smart TVs, digital receivers, games consoles and even cars, TuneIn reaches more than 230 countries and territories worldwide. One, however, is about to cause the company a headache.

According to a report from Music Business Worldwide (MBW), Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group are suing TuneIn over unlicensed streams.

MBW sources say that the record labels filed proceedings in the UK High Court last week, claiming that TuneIn committed copyright infringement on at least 800 music streams accessible in the UK.

While TuneIn does offer premium streams to customers, the service primarily acts as an index for radio streams hosted by their respective third-party creators. It describes itself as “an audio guide service” which indicates it does not directly provide the content listened to by its users.

However, previous EU rulings (such as one related to The Pirate Bay) have determined that providing an index to content is tantamount to a communication to the public, which for unlicensed content would amount to infringement in the UK.

While it would be difficult to avoid responsibility, TuneIn states on its website that it makes no claim that its service is legal in any other country than the United States.

“Those who choose to access or use the Service from locations outside the United States of America do so on their own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws, if and to the extent local laws are applicable,” the company writes.

“Access to the Service from jurisdictions where the contents or practices of the Service are illegal, unauthorized or penalized is strictly prohibited.”

All that being said, the specific details of the Sony/Warner complaint are not yet publicly available so the precise nature of the High Court action is yet to be determined.

TorrentFreak contacted the BPI, the industry body that represents both Sony and Warner in the UK, for comment on the lawsuit. A spokesperson informed us that they are not directly involved in the action.

We also contacted both the IFPI and San Francisco-based TuneIn for further comment but at the time of publication, we were yet to hear back from either.

TuneIn reportedly has until the end of November to file a defense.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Security updates for Tuesday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/738378/rss

Security updates have been issued by Debian (apr, apr-util, chromium-browser, libpam4j, and mupdf), Fedora (community-mysql and modulemd), Mageia (git), openSUSE (libsass, libwpd, qemu, sssd, and SuSEfirewall2), Red Hat (Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7.0), SUSE (qemu), and Ubuntu (openssl).

Now Available – Compute-Intensive C5 Instances for Amazon EC2

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-compute-intensive-c5-instances-for-amazon-ec2/

I’m thrilled to announce that the new compute-intensive C5 instances are available today in six sizes for launch in three AWS regions!

These instances designed for compute-heavy applications like batch processing, distributed analytics, high-performance computing (HPC), ad serving, highly scalable multiplayer gaming, and video encoding. The new instances offer a 25% price/performance improvement over the C4 instances, with over 50% for some workloads. They also have additional memory per vCPU, and (for code that can make use of the new AVX-512 instructions), twice the performance for vector and floating point workloads.

Over the years we have been working non-stop to provide our customers with the best possible networking, storage, and compute performance, with a long-term focus on offloading many types of work to dedicated hardware designed and built by AWS. The C5 instance type incorporates the latest generation of our hardware offloads, and also takes another big step forward with the addition of a new hypervisor that runs hand-in-glove with our hardware. The new hypervisor allows us to give you access to all of the processing power provided by the host hardware, while also making performance even more consistent and further raising the bar on security. We’ll be sharing many technical details about it at AWS re:Invent.

The New Instances
The C5 instances are available in six sizes:

Instance Name vCPUs
RAM
EBS Bandwidth Network Bandwidth
c5.large 2 4 GiB Up to 2.25 Gbps Up to 10 Gbps
c5.xlarge 4 8 GiB Up to 2.25 Gbps Up to 10 Gbps
c5.2xlarge 8 16 GiB Up to 2.25 Gbps Up to 10 Gbps
c5.4xlarge 16 32 GiB 2.25 Gbps Up to 10 Gbps
c5.9xlarge 36 72 GiB 4.5 Gbps 10 Gbps
c5.18xlarge 72 144 GiB 9 Gbps 25 Gbps

Each vCPU is a hardware hyperthread on a 3.0 GHz Intel Xeon Platinum 8000-series processor. This custom processor, optimized for EC2, allows you have full control over the C-states on the two largest sizes, allowing you to run a single core at up to 3.5 GHz using Intel Turbo Boost Technology.

As you can see from the table, the four smallest instance sizes offer substantially more EBS and network bandwidth than the previous generation of compute-intensive instances.

Because all networking and storage functionality is implemented in hardware, C5 instances require HVM AMIs that include drivers for the Elastic Network Adapter (ENA) and NVMe. The latest Amazon Linux, Microsoft Windows, Ubuntu, RHEL, CentOS, SLES, Debian, and FreeBSD AMIs all support C5 instances. If you are doing machine learning inferencing, or other compute-intensive work, be sure to check out the most recent version of the Intel Math Kernel Library. It has been optimized for the Intel® Xeon® Platinum processor and has the potential to greatly accelerate your work.

In order to remain compatible with instances that use the Xen hypervisor, the device names for EBS volumes will continue to use the existing /dev/sd and /dev/xvd prefixes. The device name that you provide when you attach a volume to an instance is not used because the NVMe driver assigns its own device name (read Amazon EBS and NVMe to learn more):

The nvme command displays additional information about each volume (install it using sudo yum -y install nvme-cli if necessary):

The SN field in the output can be mapped to an EBS volume ID by inserting a “-” after the “vol” prefix (sadly, the NVMe SN field is not long enough to store the entire ID). Here’s a simple script that uses this information to create an EBS snapshot of each attached volume:

$ sudo nvme list | \
  awk '/dev/ {print(gensub("vol", "vol-", 1, $2))}' | \
  xargs -n 1 aws ec2 create-snapshot --volume-id

With a little more work (and a lot of testing), you could create a script that expands EBS volumes that are getting full.

Getting to C5
As I mentioned earlier, our effort to offload work to hardware accelerators has been underway for quite some time. Here’s a recap:

CC1 – Launched in 2010, the CC1 was designed to support scale-out HPC applications. It was the first EC2 instance to support 10 Gbps networking and one of the first to support HVM virtualization. The network fabric that we designed for the CC1 (based on our own switch hardware) has become the standard for all AWS data centers.

C3 – Launched in 2013, the C3 introduced Enhanced Networking and uses dedicated hardware accelerators to support the software defined network inside of each Virtual Private Cloud (VPC). Hardware virtualization removes the I/O stack from the hypervisor in favor of direct access by the guest OS, resulting in higher performance and reduced variability.

C4 – Launched in 2015, the C4 instances are EBS Optimized by default via a dedicated network connection, and also offload EBS processing (including CPU-intensive crypto operations for encrypted EBS volumes) to a hardware accelerator.

C5 – Launched today, the hypervisor that powers the C5 instances allow practically all of the resources of the host CPU to be devoted to customer instances. The ENA networking and the NVMe interface to EBS are both powered by hardware accelerators. The instances do not require (or support) the Xen paravirtual networking or block device drivers, both of which have been removed in order to increase efficiency.

Going forward, we’ll use this hypervisor to power other instance types and plan to share additional technical details in a set of AWS re:Invent sessions.

Launch a C5 Today
You can launch C5 instances today in the US East (Northern Virginia), US West (Oregon), and EU (Ireland) Regions in On-Demand and Spot form (Reserved Instances are also available), with additional Regions in the works.

One quick note before I go: The current NVMe driver is not optimized for high-performance sequential workloads and we don’t recommend the use of C5 instances in conjunction with sc1 or st1 volumes. We are aware of this issue and have been working to optimize the driver for this important use case.

Jeff;

[$] Using eBPF and XDP in Suricata

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/737771/rss

Much software that uses the Linux kernel does so at comparative
arms-length: when it needs the kernel, perhaps for a read or write, it
performs a system call, then (at least from its point of view) continues
operation later, with whatever the kernel chooses to give it in reply. Some
software, however, gets pretty intimately involved with the kernel as part
of its normal operation, for example by using eBPF for low-level packet
processing. Suricata is such a program; Eric Leblond
spoke about it at Kernel Recipes 2017 in a talk entitled “eBPF and XDP
seen from the
eyes of a meerkat”.

YouTube MP3 Converters Block UK Traffic to Avoid Trouble

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-mp3-converters-block-uk-traffic-to-avoid-trouble-171029/

The music industry sees stream ripping as one of the largest piracy threats, worse than torrent sites or direct download portals.

Last year the RIAA, IFPI and BPI filed legal action against YouTube-MP3, the largest stream ripping site at the time. This case eventually resulted in a settlement where the site agreed to shut down voluntarily.

This was a clear victory for the music groups which swiftly identified their next targets. These include Convert2mp3.net, Savefrom.net, MP3juices.cc and YtMp3.cc, which were highlighted by the RIAA in a letter to the US Government.

The legal action against YouTube-MP3 and the RIAA’s notorious markets report appears to have made an impact, as MP3Juices.cc and YtMp3.cc have shut their doors. Interestingly, this only applies to the UK.

..not available in the UK

It’s unclear why both sites are “shutting down” in the UK and not elsewhere, as the operators haven’t commented on the issue. However, in other parts of the world, the site is readily available.

MP3juices

Last year, music industry group BPI signed an agreement with YouTube-MP3 to block UK visitors, which sounds very familiar. While the BPI is not directly responsible for the recent geo-blocks, the group sees it as a positive trend.

“We are seeing that the closure of the largest stream ripping site, YouTube-mp3, following coordinated global legal action from record companies, is having an impact on the operations of other ripping sites,” BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor informs TorrentFreak.

“However, stream ripping remains a major issue for the industry. These sites are making large sums of money from music without paying a penny to those that invest in and create it. We will continue to take legal action against other illegal ripping sites where necessary.”

Stream rippers or converters are not by definition illegal, as pointed out by the CCIA last week. However, music industry groups will continue to crack down on the ones they view as copyright infringing.

MP3Juices.cc and YtMp3.cc are likely hoping to take the pressure off with their voluntary geo-blocking. Time will tell whether that’s a good strategy. In any event, it didn’t prevent YouTube-MP3 from caving in completely, in the end.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

New – Amazon EC2 Instances with Up to 8 NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs (P3)

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-ec2-instances-with-up-to-8-nvidia-tesla-v100-gpus-p3/

Driven by customer demand and made possible by on-going advances in the state-of-the-art, we’ve come a long way since the original m1.small instance that we launched in 2006, with instances that are emphasize compute power, burstable performance, memory size, local storage, and accelerated computing.

The New P3
Today we are making the next generation of GPU-powered EC2 instances available in four AWS regions. Powered by up to eight NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs, the P3 instances are designed to handle compute-intensive machine learning, deep learning, computational fluid dynamics, computational finance, seismic analysis, molecular modeling, and genomics workloads.

P3 instances use customized Intel Xeon E5-2686v4 processors running at up to 2.7 GHz. They are available in three sizes (all VPC-only and EBS-only):

Model NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs GPU Memory NVIDIA NVLink vCPUs Main Memory Network Bandwidth EBS Bandwidth
p3.2xlarge 1 16 GiB n/a 8 61 GiB Up to 10 Gbps 1.5 Gbps
p3.8xlarge 4 64 GiB 200 GBps 32 244 GiB 10 Gbps 7 Gbps
p3.16xlarge 8 128 GiB 300 GBps 64 488 GiB 25 Gbps 14 Gbps

Each of the NVIDIA GPUs is packed with 5,120 CUDA cores and another 640 Tensor cores and can deliver up to 125 TFLOPS of mixed-precision floating point, 15.7 TFLOPS of single-precision floating point, and 7.8 TFLOPS of double-precision floating point. On the two larger sizes, the GPUs are connected together via NVIDIA NVLink 2.0 running at a total data rate of up to 300 GBps. This allows the GPUs to exchange intermediate results and other data at high speed, without having to move it through the CPU or the PCI-Express fabric.

What’s a Tensor Core?
I had not heard the term Tensor core before starting to write this post. According to this very helpful post on the NVIDIA Blog, Tensor cores are designed to speed up the training and inference of large, deep neural networks. Each core is able to quickly and efficiently multiply a pair of 4×4 half-precision (also known as FP16) matrices together, add the resulting 4×4 matrix to another half or single-precision (FP32) matrix, and store the resulting 4×4 matrix in either half or single-precision form. Here’s a diagram from NVIDIA’s blog post:

This operation is in the innermost loop of the training process for a deep neural network, and is an excellent example of how today’s NVIDIA GPU hardware is purpose-built to address a very specific market need. By the way, the mixed-precision qualifier on the Tensor core performance means that it is flexible enough to work with with a combination of 16-bit and 32-bit floating point values.

Performance in Perspective
I always like to put raw performance numbers into a real-world perspective so that they are easier to relate to and (hopefully) more meaningful. This turned out to be surprisingly difficult, given that the eight NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs on a single p3.16xlarge can do 125 trillion single-precision floating point multiplications per second.

Let’s go back to the dawn of the microprocessor era, and consider the Intel 8080A chip that powered the MITS Altair that I bought in the summer of 1977. With a 2 MHz clock, it was able to do about 832 multiplications per second (I used this data and corrected it for the faster clock speed). The p3.16xlarge is roughly 150 billion times faster. However, just 1.2 billion seconds have gone by since that summer. In other words, I can do 100x more calculations today in one second than my Altair could have done in the last 40 years!

What about the innovative 8087 math coprocessor that was an optional accessory for the IBM PC that was announced in the summer of 1981? With a 5 MHz clock and purpose-built hardware, it was able to do about 52,632 multiplications per second. 1.14 billion seconds have elapsed since then, p3.16xlarge is 2.37 billion times faster, so the poor little PC would be barely halfway through a calculation that would run for 1 second today.

Ok, how about a Cray-1? First delivered in 1976, this supercomputer was able to perform vector operations at 160 MFLOPS, making the p3.x16xlarge 781,000 times faster. It could have iterated on some interesting problem 1500 times over the years since it was introduced.

Comparisons between the P3 and today’s scale-out supercomputers are harder to make, given that you can think of the P3 as a step-and-repeat component of a supercomputer that you can launch on as as-needed basis.

Run One Today
In order to take full advantage of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs and the Tensor cores, you will need to use CUDA 9 and cuDNN7. These drivers and libraries have already been added to the newest versions of the Windows AMIs and will be included in an updated Amazon Linux AMI that is scheduled for release on November 7th. New packages are already available in our repos if you want to to install them on your existing Amazon Linux AMI.

The newest AWS Deep Learning AMIs come preinstalled with the latest releases of Apache MxNet, Caffe2, and Tensorflow (each with support for the NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs), and will be updated to support P3 instances with other machine learning frameworks such as Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit and PyTorch as soon as these frameworks release support for the NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs. You can also use the NVIDIA Volta Deep Learning AMI for NGC.

P3 instances are available in the US East (Northern Virginia), US West (Oregon), EU (Ireland), and Asia Pacific (Tokyo) Regions in On-Demand, Spot, Reserved Instance, and Dedicated Host form.

Jeff;