Tag Archives: paris

Ares Kodi Project Calls it Quits After Hollywood Cease & Desist

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/ares-kodi-project-calls-it-quits-after-hollywood-cease-desist-171117/

This week has been particularly bad for those involved in the Kodi addon scene. Following cease-and-desist notices from the MPA-led anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, several addon developers and repositories shut down.

With Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner, Netflix, Amazon and Sky TV all lined up for war, the third-party developers had little choice but to quit. One of those affected was the leader of the hugely popular Ares Project, which quietly disappeared mid-week.

The Ares Wizard was an extremely popular and important piece of software which allowed people to switch Kodi builds, install third-party addons, install popular repositories, change system settings, and carry out backups. It’s installed on huge numbers of machines worldwide but it will soon fall into disrepair.

The mighty Ares Wizard in action

“[This week] I was subject to a hand-delivered notice to cease-and-desist from MPA & ACE,” Ares Project leader Tekto informs TorrentFreak.

“Given the notice, we obviously shut down the repo and wizard as requested.”

The news that Ares Project is done and never coming back will be a huge blow to the community. The project just celebrated its second birthday and has grown exponentially since it first arrived on the scene.

“Ares Project started in Oct 2015. Originally it was to be a tool to setup up the video cache on Kodi correctly. However, many ideas were thrown into the pot and it became a wee bit more; such as a wizard to install community provided builds, common addons and few other tweaks and options,” Tekto says.

“For my own part I started blogging earlier that year as part of a longer-term goal to be self-funding. I always disliked seeing begging bowls out to support ‘server’ costs, many of which were cheap £5-10 per month servers that were used to gain £100s in donations.

“The blog, via affiliate links and ads, could and would provide the funds to cover our hosting costs without resorting to begging for money every weekend.”

Intrigued by this first wave of actions by ACE in Europe, TorrentFreak asked for a copy of the MPA/ACE cease-and-desist notice but unfortunately, Tekto flat-out refused. All he would tell us is that he’d agreed not to give out any copies or screenshots and that he was adhering to that 100%.

That only leaves speculation as to what grounds the MPA/ACE cited for closing the project but to be fair, it doesn’t take much thought to find a direct comparison. Earlier this year, in the BREIN v Filmspeler case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that selling “fully-loaded” Kodi boxes amounted to illegally communicating copyrighted content to the public.

With that in mind, it doesn’t take much of a leap to see how this ruling could also apply to someone distributing “fully-loaded” Kodi software builds or addons via a website. It had previously been considered a legal gray area, of course, and it was in that space that the Ares team believed it operated. After all, it took ECJ clarification for local courts in the Netherlands to be satisfied with the legal position.

“There was never any question that what we were doing was illegal. We didn’t and never have hosted any content, we always prevented discussions about illegal paid services, and never sold any devices, pre-loaded or otherwise. That used to be enough to occupy the ‘gray’ area which meant we were safe to develop our applications. That changed in 2017 as we were to discover,” Tekto notes.

Up until this week and apparently oblivious to how the earlier ECJ ruling might affect their operation, things had been going extremely well for Ares. In mid-2016, the group moved to its own support forum that attracted 100,000 signed-up members and 300,000 visitors every month.

“This was quite an achievement in terms of viral marketing but ultimately this would become part of our downfall,” Tekto says.

“The recent innovation of the ‘basket driven’ Ares Portal system seems to have triggered the legal move to shut the project down completely. This simple system gave access to hundreds of add-ons. The system removed the need for builds, blogs and YouTubers – you just shopped on the site for addons and then installed them to your device with a simple 6 digit code.”

While Ares and Tekto still didn’t believe they were doing anything illegal (addons were linked, not hosted) it is now pretty clear to them that the previous gray area has been well and truly closed, at least as far as the MPA/ACE alliance is concerned. And with that in mind, the show is over. Done. Finished.

“We are not criminals or malicious hackers, we weren’t even careful about hiding our identities. You couldn’t meet a more ordinary bunch of folks in truth,” he says.

“There was never any question we would close our doors if what we were doing crossed any boundaries of legality. So with the notice served on us, we are closing our doors and removing all our websites and applications. It’s a sad day in many ways, but nobody wants to be facing court or a potential custodial sentence, for what is essentially a hobby.”

Finally, Tekto says that others like him might want to consider their positions carefully, before they too get a knock at the door. In the meantime, he gives thanks to the project’s supporters, who have remained loyal over the past two years.

“It just leaves me to thank our users for their support and step away from the Kodi scene,” he concludes.

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

Backing Up the Modern Enterprise with Backblaze for Business

Post Syndicated from Roderick Bauer original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/endpoint-backup-solutions/

Endpoint backup diagram

Organizations of all types and sizes need reliable and secure backup. Whether they have as few as 3 or as many as 300,000 computer users, an organization’s computer data is a valuable business asset that needs to be protected.

Modern organizations are changing how they work and where they work, which brings new challenges to making sure that company’s data assets are not only available, but secure. Larger organizations have IT departments that are prepared to address these needs, but often times in smaller and newer organizations the challenge falls upon office management who might not be as prepared or knowledgeable to face a work environment undergoing dramatic changes.

Whether small or large, local or world-wide, for-profit or non-profit, organizations need a backup strategy and solution that matches the new ways of working in the enterprise.

The Enterprise Has Changed, and So Has Data Use

More and more, organizations are working in the cloud. These days organizations can operate just fine without their own file servers, database servers, mail servers, or other IT infrastructure that used to be standard for all but the smallest organization.

The reality is that for most organizations, though, it’s a hybrid work environment, with a combination of cloud-based and PC and Macintosh-based applications. Legacy apps aren’t going away any time soon. They will be with us for a while, with their accompanying data scattered amongst all the desktops, laptops and other endpoints in corporate headquarters, home offices, hotel rooms, and airport waiting areas.

In addition, the modern workforce likely combines regular full-time employees, remote workers, contractors, and sometimes interns, volunteers, and other temporary workers who also use company IT assets.

The Modern Enterprise Brings New Challenges for IT

These changes in how enterprises work present a problem for anyone tasked with making sure that data — no matter who uses it or where it lives — is adequately backed-up. Cloud-based applications, when properly used and managed, can be adequately backed up, provided that users are connected to the internet and data transfers occur regularly — which is not always the case. But what about the data on the laptops, desktops, and devices used by remote employees, contractors, or just employees whose work keeps them on the road?

The organization’s backup solution must address all the needs of the modern organization or enterprise using both cloud and PC and Mac-based applications, and not be constrained by employee or computer location.

A Ten-Point Checklist for the Modern Enterprise for Backing Up

What should the modern enterprise look for when evaluating a backup solution?

1) Easy to deploy to workers’ computers

Whether installed by the computer user or an IT person locally or remotely, the backup solution must be easy to implement quickly with minimal demands on the user or administrator.

2) Fast and unobtrusive client software

Backups should happen in the background by efficient (native) PC and Macintosh software clients that don’t consume valuable processing power or take memory away from applications the user needs.

3) Easy to configure

The backup solutions must be easy to configure for both the user and the IT professional. Ease-of-use means less time to deploy, configure, and manage.

4) Defaults to backing up all valuable data

By default, the solution backs up commonly used files and folders or directories, including desktops. Some backup solutions are difficult and intimidating because they require that the user chose what needs to be backed up, often missing files and folders/directories that contain valuable data.

5) Works automatically in the background

Backups should happen automatically, no matter where the computer is located. The computer user, especially the remote or mobile one, shouldn’t be required to attach cables or drives, or remember to initiate backups. A working solution backs up automatically without requiring action by the user or IT administrator.

6) Data restores are fast and easy

Whether it’s a single file, directory, or an entire system that must be restored, a user or IT sysadmin needs to be able to restore backed up data as quickly as possible. In cases of large restores to remote locations, the ability to send a restore via physical media is a must.

7) No limitations on data

Throttling, caps, and data limits complicate backups and require guesses about how much storage space will be needed.

8) Safe & Secure

Organizations require that their data is secure during all phases of initial upload, storage, and restore.

9) Easy-to-manage

The backup solution needs to provide a clear and simple web management interface for all functions. Designing for ease-of-use leads to efficiency in management and operation.

10) Affordable and transparent pricing

Backup costs should be predictable, understandable, and without surprises.

Two Scenarios for the Modern Enterprise

Enterprises exist in many forms and types, but wanting to meet the above requirements is common across all of them. Below, we take a look at two common scenarios showing how enterprises face these challenges. Three case studies are available that provide more information about how Backblaze customers have succeeded in these environments.

Enterprise Profile 1

The needs of a smaller enterprise differ from those of larger, established organizations. This organization likely doesn’t have anyone who is devoted full-time to IT. The job of on-boarding new employees and getting them set up with a computer likely falls upon an executive assistant or office manager. This person might give new employees a checklist with the software and account information and lets users handle setting up the computer themselves.

Organizations in this profile need solutions that are easy to install and require little to no configuration. Backblaze, by default, backs up all user data, which lets the organization be secure in knowing all the data will be backed up to the cloud — including files left on the desktop. Combined with Backblaze’s unlimited data policy, organizations have a truly “set it and forget it” platform.

Customizing Groups To Meet Teams’ Needs

The Groups feature of Backblaze for Business allows an organization to decide whether an individual client’s computer will be Unmanaged (backups and restores under the control of the worker), or Managed, in which an administrator can monitor the status and frequency of backups and handle restores should they become necessary. One group for the entire organization might be adequate at this stage, but the organization has the option to add additional groups as it grows and needs more flexibility and control.

The organization, of course, has the choice of managing and monitoring users using Groups. With Backblaze’s Groups, organizations can set user-based access rules, which allows the administrator to create restores for lost files or entire computers on an employee’s behalf, to centralize billing for all client computers in the organization, and to redeploy a recovered computer or new computer with the backed up data.

Restores

In this scenario, the decision has been made to let each user manage her own backups, including restores, if necessary, of individual files or entire systems. If a restore of a file or system is needed, the restore process is easy enough for the user to handle it by herself.

Case Study 1

Read about how PagerDuty uses Backblaze for Business in a mixed enterprise of cloud and desktop/laptop applications.

PagerDuty Case Study

In a common approach, the employee can retrieve an accidentally deleted file or an earlier version of a document on her own. The Backblaze for Business interface is easy to navigate and was designed with feedback from thousands of customers over the course of a decade.

In the event of a lost, damaged, or stolen laptop,  administrators of Managed Groups can  initiate the restore, which could be in the form of a download of a restore ZIP file from the web management console, or the overnight shipment of a USB drive directly to the organization or user.

Enterprise Profile 2

This profile is for an organization with a full-time IT staff. When a new worker joins the team, the IT staff is tasked with configuring the computer and delivering it to the new employee.

Backblaze for Business Groups

Case Study 2

Global charitable organization charity: water uses Backblaze for Business to back up workers’ and volunteers’ laptops as they travel to developing countries in their efforts to provide clean and safe drinking water.

charity: water Case Study

This organization can take advantage of additional capabilities in Groups. A Managed Group makes sense in an organization with a geographically dispersed work force as it lets IT ensure that workers’ data is being regularly backed up no matter where they are. Billing can be company-wide or assigned to individual departments or geographical locations. The organization has the choice of how to divide the organization into Groups (location, function, subsidiary, etc.) and whether the Group should be Managed or Unmanaged. Using Managed Groups might be suitable for most of the organization, but there are exceptions in which sensitive data might dictate using an Unmanaged Group, such as could be the case with HR, the executive team, or finance.

Deployment

By Invitation Email, Link, or Domain

Backblaze for Business allows a number of options for deploying the client software to workers’ computers. Client installation is fast and easy on both Windows and Macintosh, so sending email invitations to users or automatically enrolling users by domain or invitation link, is a common approach.

By Remote Deployment

IT might choose to remotely and silently deploy Backblaze for Business across specific Groups or the entire organization. An administrator can silently deploy the Backblaze backup client via the command-line, or use common RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) tools such as Jamf and Munki.

Restores

Case Study 3

Read about how Bright Bear Technology Solutions, an IT Managed Service Provider (MSP), uses the Groups feature of Backblaze for Business to manage customer backups and restores, deploy Backblaze licenses to their customers, and centralize billing for all their client-based backup services.

Bright Bear Case Study

Some organizations are better equipped to manage or assist workers when restores become necessary. Individual users will be pleased to discover they can roll-back files to an earlier version if they wish, but IT will likely manage any complete system restore that involves reconfiguring a computer after a repair or requisitioning an entirely new system when needed.

This organization might chose to retain a client’s entire computer backup for archival purposes, using Backblaze B2 as the cloud storage solution. This is another advantage of having a cloud storage provider that combines both endpoint backup and cloud object storage among its services.

The Next Step: Server Backup & Data Archiving with B2 Cloud Storage

As organizations grow, they have increased needs for cloud storage beyond Macintosh and PC data backup. Backblaze’s object cloud storage, Backblaze B2, provides low-cost storage and archiving of records, media, and server data that can grow with the organization’s size and needs.

B2 Cloud Storage is available through the same Backblaze management console as Backblaze Computer Backup. This means that Admins have one console for billing, monitoring, deployment, and role provisioning. B2 is priced at 1/4 the cost of Amazon S3, or $0.005 per month per gigabyte (which equals $5/month per terabyte).

Why Modern Enterprises Chose Backblaze

Backblaze for Business

Businesses and organizations select Backblaze for Business for backup because Backblaze is designed to meet the needs of the modern enterprise. Backblaze customers are part of a a platform that has a 10+ year track record of innovation and over 400 petabytes of customer data already under management.

Backblaze’s backup model is proven through head-to-head comparisons to back up data that other backup solutions overlook in their default configurations — including valuable files that are needed after an accidental deletion, theft, or computer failure.

Backblaze is the only enterprise-level backup company that provides TOTP (Time-based One-time Password) via both SMS and Authentication app to all accounts at no incremental charge. At just $50/year/computer, Backblaze is affordable for any size of enterprise.

Modern Enterprises can Meet The Challenge of The Changing Data Environment

With the right backup solution and strategy, the modern enterprise will be prepared to ensure that its data is protected from accident, disaster, or theft, whether its data is in one office or dispersed among many locations, and remote and mobile employees.

Backblaze for Business is an affordable solution that enables organizations to meet the evolving data demands facing the modern enterprise.

The post Backing Up the Modern Enterprise with Backblaze for Business appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Hard Drive Stats for Q3 2017

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-rates-q3-2017/

Q3 2017 Hard Drive Stats

In Q3 2017, Backblaze introduced both 10 TB and 12 TB hard drives into our data centers, we continued to retire 3 TB and 4 TB hard drives to increase storage density, and we added over 59 petabytes of data storage to bring our total storage capacity to 400 petabytes.

In this update, we’ll review the Q3 2017 and lifetime hard drive failure rates for all our drive models in use at the end of Q3. We’ll also check in on our 8 TB enterprise versus consumer hard drive comparison, and look at the storage density changes in our data centers over the past couple of years. Along the way, we’ll share our observations and insights, and as always, you can download the hard drive statistics data we use to create these reports.

Q3 2017 Hard Drive Failure Rates

Since our Q2 2017 report, we added 9,599 new hard drives and retired 6,221 hard drives, for a net add of 3,378 drives and a total of 86,529. These numbers are for those hard drives of which we have 45 or more drives — with one exception that we’ll get to in a minute.

Let’s look at the Q3 statistics that include our first look at the 10 TB and 12 TB hard drives we added in Q3. The chart below is for activity that occurred just in Q3 2017.

Hard Drive Failure Rates for Q3 2017

Observations

  1. The hard drive failure rate for the quarter was 1.84%, our lowest quarterly rate ever. There are several factors that contribute to this, but one that stands out is the average age of the hard drives in use. Only the 4 TB HGST drives (model: HDS5C4040ALE630) have an average age over 4 years — 51.3 months to be precise. The average age of all the other drive models is less than 4 years, with nearly 80% of all of the drives being less than 3 years old.
  2. The 10- and 12 TB drive models are new. With a combined 13,000 drive days in operation, they’ve had zero failures. While all of these drives passed through formatting and load testing without incident, it is a little too early to reach any conclusions.

Testing Drives

Normally, we list only those drive models where we have 45 drives or more, as it formerly took 45 drives (currently 60), to fill a Storage Pod. We consider a Storage Pod as a base unit for drive testing. Yet, we listed the 12 TB drives even though we only have 20 of them in operation. What gives? It’s the first step in testing drives.

A Backblaze Vault consists of 20 Storage Pods logically grouped together. Twenty 12 TB drives are deployed in the same drive position in each of the 20 Storage Pods and grouped together into a storage unit we call a “tome.” An incoming file is stored in one tome, and is spread out across the 20 storage pods in the tome for reliability and availability. The remaining 59 tomes, in this case, use 8 TB drives. This allows us to see the performance and reliability of a 12 TB hard drive model in an operational environment without having to buy 1,200 of them to start.

Breaking news: Our first Backblaze Vault filled with 1,200 Seagate 12 TB hard drives (model: ST12000NM007) went into production on October 20th.

Storage Density Continues to Increase

As noted earlier, we retired 6,221 hard drives in Q3: all 3- or 4 TB hard drives. The retired drives have been replaced by 8-, 10-, and 12 TB drive models. This dramatic increase in storage density added 59 petabytes of storage in Q3. The following chart shows that change since the beginning of 2016.

Hard Drive Count by Drive Size

You clearly can see the retirement of the 2 TB and 3 TB drives, each being replaced predominantly by 8 TB drives. You also can see the beginning of the retirement curve for the 4 TB drives that will be replaced most likely by 12 TB drives over the coming months. A subset of the 4 TB drives, about 10,000 or so which were installed in the past year or so, will most likely stay in service for at least the next couple of years.

Lifetime Hard Drive Stats

The table below shows the failure rates for the hard drive models we had in service as of September 30, 2017. This is over the period beginning in April 2013 and ending September 30, 2017. If you are interested in the hard drive failure rates for all the hard drives we’ve used over the years, please refer to our 2016 hard drive review.

Cumulative Hard Drive Failure Rates

Note 1: The “+ / – Change” column reflects the change in the annualized failure rate from the previous quarter. Down is good, up is bad.
Note 2: You can download the data on this chart and the data from the “Hard Drive Failure Rates for Q3 2017” chart shown earlier in this review. The downloaded ZIP file contains one MSExcel spreadsheet.

The annualized failure rate for all of the drive models listed above is 2.07%; this is the higher than the 1.97% for the previous quarter. The primary driver behind this was the retirement of all of the HGST 3 TB drives (model: HDS5C3030ALA630) in Q3. Those drives had over 6 million drive days and an annualized failure rate of 0.82% — well below the average for the entire set of drives. Those drives now are gone and no longer part of the results.

Consumer Versus Enterprise Drives

The comparison of the consumer and enterprise Seagate 8 TB drives continues. Both of the drive models, Enterprise: ST8000NM0055 and Consumer: ST8000DM002, saw their annualized failure rates decrease from the previous quarter. In the case of the enterprise drives, this occurred even though we added 8,350 new drives in Q3. This brings the total number of Seagate 8 TB enterprise drives to 14,404, which have accumulated nearly 1.4 million drive days.

A comparison of the two drive models shows the annualized failure rates being very similar:

  • 8 TB Consumer Drives: 1.1% Annualized Failure Rate
  • 8 TB Enterprise Drives: 1.2% Annualized Failure Rate

Given that the failure rates for the two drive models appears to be similar, are the Seagate 8 TB enterprise drives worth any premium you might have to pay for them? As we have previously documented, the Seagate enterprise drives load data faster and have a number of features such as the PowerChoiceTM technology that can be very useful. In addition, enterprise drives typically have a 5 year warranty versus a 2 year warranty for the consumer drives. While drive price and availability are our primary considerations, you may decide other factors are more important.

We will continue to follow these drives, especially as they age over 2 years: the warranty point for the consumer drives.

Join the Drive Stats Webinar on Friday, November 3

We will be doing a deeper dive on this review in a webinar: “Q3 2017 Hard Drive Failure Stats” being held on Friday, November 3rd at 10:00 am Pacific Time. We’ll dig into what’s behind the numbers, including the enterprise vs consumer drive comparison. To sign up for the webinar, you will need to subscribe to the Backblaze BrightTALK channel if you haven’t already done so.

Wrapping Up

Our next drive stats post will be in January, when we’ll review the data for Q4 and all of 2017, and we’ll update our lifetime stats for all of the drives we have ever used. In addition, we’ll get our first real look at the 12 TB drives.

As a reminder, the hard drive data we use is available on our Hard Drive Test Data page. You can download and use this data for free for your own purpose. All we ask are three things 1) you cite Backblaze as the source if you use the data, 2) you accept that you are solely responsible for how you use the data, and 3) you do not sell this data to anyone: it is free.

Good luck and let us know if you find anything interesting.

The post Hard Drive Stats for Q3 2017 appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

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;

 

Blockchain? It’s All Greek To Me…

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/blockchain-its-all-greek-to-me/

The blockchain hype is huge, the ICO craze (“Coindike”) is generating millions if not billions of “funding” for businesses that claim to revolutionize basically anything.

I’ve been following all of that for a while. I got my first (and only) Bitcoin several years ago, I know how the technology works, I’ve implemented the data structure part, I’ve tried (with varying success) to install an Ethereum wallet since almost as soon as Ethereum appeared, and I’ve read and subscribed to newsletters about dozens of projects and new cryptocurrencies, including storj.io, siacoin, namecoin, etc. I would say I’m at least above average in terms of knowledge on how the cryptocurrencies, blockchain, smart contracts, EVM, proof-of-wahtever operates. And I’ve voiced my concerns about the technology in general.

Now it’s rant time.

I’ve been reading whitepapers of various projects, I’ve been to various meetups and talks, I’ve been reading the professed future applications of the blockchain, and I have to admit – it’s all Greek to me. I have no clue what these people are talking about. And why would all of that make any sense. I still think I’m not clever enough to understand the upcoming revolution, but there’s also a cynical side of me that says “this is all a scam”.

Why “X on the blockchain” somehow makes it magical and superior to a good old centralized solution? No, spare me the cliches about “immutable ledger”, “lack of central authority” and the likes. These are the phrases that a person learns after reading literally one article about blockchain. Have you actually written anything apart from a complex-sounding whitepaper or a hello-world smart contract? Do you really know how the overlay network works, how the economic incentives behind that network work, how all the cryptography works? Maybe there are many, many people that indeed know that and they know it better than me and are thus able to imagine the business case behind “X on the blockchain”.

I can’t. I can’t see why it would be useful to abandon a centralized database that you can query in dozens of ways, test easily and scale trivially in favour of a clunky write-only, low-throughput, hard-to-debug privacy nightmare that is any public blockchain. And how do you imagine to gain a substantial userbase with an ecosystem where the Windows client for the 2nd most popular blockchain (Ethereum) has been so buggy, I (a software engineer) couldn’t get it work and sync the whole chain. And why would building a website ontop of that clunky, user-unfriendly database has any benefit over a centralized competitor?

Do we all believe that somehow the huge datacenters with guarnateed power backups, regular hardware and network checks, regular backups and overall – guaranteed redundancy – will somehow be beaten by a few thousand machines hosting a software that has the sole purpose of guaranteeing integrity? Bitcoin has 10 thousand nodes. Ethereum has 22 thousand nodes. And while these nodes are probably very well GPU-equipped, they aren’t supercomputers. Amazon’s AWS has a million servers. How’s that for comparison. And why would anyone take seriously 22 thousand non-servers. Or even 220 thousand, if we believe in some inevitable growth.

Don’t get me wrong, the technology is really cool. The way tamper-evident data structures (hash chains) were combined with a consensus algorithm, an overlay network and a financial incentive is really awesome. When you add a distributed execution environment, it gets even cooler. But is it suitable for literally everything? I fail to see how.

I’m sure I’m missing something. The fact that many of those whitepapers sound increasingly like Greek to me might hint that I’m just a dumb developer and those enlightened people are really onto something huge. I guess time will tell.

But I happen to be living in a country that saw a transition to capitalism in the years of my childhood. And there were a lot of scams and ponzi schemes that people believed in. Because they didn’t know how capitalism works, how the market works. I’m seeing some similarities – we have no idea how the digital realm really works, and so a lot of scams are bound to appear, until we as a society learn the basics.

Until then – enjoy your ICO, enjoy your tokens, enjoy your big-player competitor with practically the same business model, only on a worse database.

And I hope that after the smoke of hype and fraud clears, we’ll be able to enjoy the true benefits of the blockchain innovation.

The post Blockchain? It’s All Greek To Me… appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

Google Asked to Delist Pirate Movie Sites, ISPs Asked to Block Them

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/google-asked-to-delist-pirate-movie-sites-isps-asked-to-block-them-171018/

After seizing several servers operated by popular private music tracker What.cd, last November French police went after a much bigger target.

Boasting millions of regular visitors, Zone-Telechargement (Zone-Download) was ranked the 11th most-visited website in the whole of the country. The site offered direct downloads of a wide variety of pirated content, including films, series, games, and music. Until the French Gendarmerie shut it down, that is.

After being founded in 2011 and enjoying huge growth following the 2012 raids against Megaupload, the Zone-Telechargement ‘brand’ was still popular with French users, despite the closure of the platform. It, therefore, came as no surprise that the site was quickly cloned by an unknown party and relaunched as Zone-Telechargement.ws.

The site has been doing extremely well following its makeover. To the annoyance of copyright holders, SimilarWeb reports the platform as France’s 37th most popular site with around 58 million visitors per month. That’s a huge achievement in less than 12 months.

Now, however, the site is receiving more unwanted attention. PCInpact says it has received information that several movie-focused organizations including the French National Film Center are requesting tough action against the site.

The National Federation of Film Distributors, the Video Publishing Union, the Association of Independent Producers and the Producers Union are all demanding the blocking of Zone-Telechargement by several local ISPs, alongside its delisting from search results.

The publication mentions four Internet service providers – Free, Numericable, Bouygues Telecom, and Orange – plus Google on the search engine front. At this stage, other search companies, such as Microsoft’s Bing, are not reported as part of the action.

In addition to Zone-Telechargement, several other ‘pirate’ sites (Papystreaming.org, Sokrostream.cc and Zonetelechargement.su, another site playing on the popular brand) are included in the legal process. All are described as “structurally infringing” by the complaining movie outfits, PCInpact notes.

The legal proceedings against the sites are based in Article 336-2 of the Intellectual Property Code. It’s ground already trodden by movie companies who following a 2011 complaint, achieved victory in 2013 against several Allostreaming-linked sites.

In that case, the High Court of Paris ordered ISPs, several of which appear in the current action, to “implement all appropriate means including blocking” to prevent access to the infringing sites.

The Court also ordered Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to “take all necessary measures to prevent the occurrence on their services of any results referring to any of the sites” on their platforms.

Also of interest is that the action targets a service called DL-Protecte.com, which according to local anti-piracy agency HADOPI, makes it difficult for rightsholders to locate infringing content while at the same time generates more revenue for pirate sites.

A judgment is expected in “several months.”

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

[$] A comparison of cryptographic keycards

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/736231/rss

[Four keycards]
An earlier LWN article showed that
private key storage is an important
problem to solve in any cryptographic system and established keycards
as a good way to store private key material offline. But which keycard
should we use? This article examines the form factor, openness, and
performance of four keycards to try to help readers choose the one that
will fit their needs.


"Responsible encryption" fallacies

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/10/responsible-encryption-fallacies.html

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a speech recently calling for “Responsible Encryption” (aka. “Crypto Backdoors”). It’s full of dangerous ideas that need to be debunked.

The importance of law enforcement

The first third of the speech talks about the importance of law enforcement, as if it’s the only thing standing between us and chaos. It cites the 2016 Mirai attacks as an example of the chaos that will only get worse without stricter law enforcement.

But the Mira case demonstrated the opposite, how law enforcement is not needed. They made no arrests in the case. A year later, they still haven’t a clue who did it.

Conversely, we technologists have fixed the major infrastructure issues. Specifically, those affected by the DNS outage have moved to multiple DNS providers, including a high-capacity DNS provider like Google and Amazon who can handle such large attacks easily.

In other words, we the people fixed the major Mirai problem, and law-enforcement didn’t.

Moreover, instead being a solution to cyber threats, law enforcement has become a threat itself. The DNC didn’t have the FBI investigate the attacks from Russia likely because they didn’t want the FBI reading all their files, finding wrongdoing by the DNC. It’s not that they did anything actually wrong, but it’s more like that famous quote from Richelieu “Give me six words written by the most honest of men and I’ll find something to hang him by”. Give all your internal emails over to the FBI and I’m certain they’ll find something to hang you by, if they want.
Or consider the case of Andrew Auernheimer. He found AT&T’s website made public user accounts of the first iPad, so he copied some down and posted them to a news site. AT&T had denied the problem, so making the problem public was the only way to force them to fix it. Such access to the website was legal, because AT&T had made the data public. However, prosecutors disagreed. In order to protect the powerful, they twisted and perverted the law to put Auernheimer in jail.

It’s not that law enforcement is bad, it’s that it’s not the unalloyed good Rosenstein imagines. When law enforcement becomes the thing Rosenstein describes, it means we live in a police state.

Where law enforcement can’t go

Rosenstein repeats the frequent claim in the encryption debate:

Our society has never had a system where evidence of criminal wrongdoing was totally impervious to detection

Of course our society has places “impervious to detection”, protected by both legal and natural barriers.

An example of a legal barrier is how spouses can’t be forced to testify against each other. This barrier is impervious.

A better example, though, is how so much of government, intelligence, the military, and law enforcement itself is impervious. If prosecutors could gather evidence everywhere, then why isn’t Rosenstein prosecuting those guilty of CIA torture?

Oh, you say, government is a special exception. If that were the case, then why did Rosenstein dedicate a precious third of his speech discussing the “rule of law” and how it applies to everyone, “protecting people from abuse by the government”. It obviously doesn’t, there’s one rule of government and a different rule for the people, and the rule for government means there’s lots of places law enforcement can’t go to gather evidence.

Likewise, the crypto backdoor Rosenstein is demanding for citizens doesn’t apply to the President, Congress, the NSA, the Army, or Rosenstein himself.

Then there are the natural barriers. The police can’t read your mind. They can only get the evidence that is there, like partial fingerprints, which are far less reliable than full fingerprints. They can’t go backwards in time.

I mention this because encryption is a natural barrier. It’s their job to overcome this barrier if they can, to crack crypto and so forth. It’s not our job to do it for them.

It’s like the camera that increasingly comes with TVs for video conferencing, or the microphone on Alexa-style devices that are always recording. This suddenly creates evidence that the police want our help in gathering, such as having the camera turned on all the time, recording to disk, in case the police later gets a warrant, to peer backward in time what happened in our living rooms. The “nothing is impervious” argument applies here as well. And it’s equally bogus here. By not helping police by not recording our activities, we aren’t somehow breaking some long standing tradit

And this is the scary part. It’s not that we are breaking some ancient tradition that there’s no place the police can’t go (with a warrant). Instead, crypto backdoors breaking the tradition that never before have I been forced to help them eavesdrop on me, even before I’m a suspect, even before any crime has been committed. Sure, laws like CALEA force the phone companies to help the police against wrongdoers — but here Rosenstein is insisting I help the police against myself.

Balance between privacy and public safety

Rosenstein repeats the frequent claim that encryption upsets the balance between privacy/safety:

Warrant-proof encryption defeats the constitutional balance by elevating privacy above public safety.

This is laughable, because technology has swung the balance alarmingly in favor of law enforcement. Far from “Going Dark” as his side claims, the problem we are confronted with is “Going Light”, where the police state monitors our every action.

You are surrounded by recording devices. If you walk down the street in town, outdoor surveillance cameras feed police facial recognition systems. If you drive, automated license plate readers can track your route. If you make a phone call or use a credit card, the police get a record of the transaction. If you stay in a hotel, they demand your ID, for law enforcement purposes.

And that’s their stuff, which is nothing compared to your stuff. You are never far from a recording device you own, such as your mobile phone, TV, Alexa/Siri/OkGoogle device, laptop. Modern cars from the last few years increasingly have always-on cell connections and data recorders that record your every action (and location).

Even if you hike out into the country, when you get back, the FBI can subpoena your GPS device to track down your hidden weapon’s cache, or grab the photos from your camera.

And this is all offline. So much of what we do is now online. Of the photographs you own, fewer than 1% are printed out, the rest are on your computer or backed up to the cloud.

Your phone is also a GPS recorder of your exact position all the time, which if the government wins the Carpenter case, they police can grab without a warrant. Tagging all citizens with a recording device of their position is not “balance” but the premise for a novel more dystopic than 1984.

If suspected of a crime, which would you rather the police searched? Your person, houses, papers, and physical effects? Or your mobile phone, computer, email, and online/cloud accounts?

The balance of privacy and safety has swung so far in favor of law enforcement that rather than debating whether they should have crypto backdoors, we should be debating how to add more privacy protections.

“But it’s not conclusive”

Rosenstein defends the “going light” (“Golden Age of Surveillance”) by pointing out it’s not always enough for conviction. Nothing gives a conviction better than a person’s own words admitting to the crime that were captured by surveillance. This other data, while copious, often fails to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is nonsense. Police got along well enough before the digital age, before such widespread messaging. They solved terrorist and child abduction cases just fine in the 1980s. Sure, somebody’s GPS location isn’t by itself enough — until you go there and find all the buried bodies, which leads to a conviction. “Going dark” imagines that somehow, the evidence they’ve been gathering for centuries is going away. It isn’t. It’s still here, and matches up with even more digital evidence.
Conversely, a person’s own words are not as conclusive as you think. There’s always missing context. We quickly get back to the Richelieu “six words” problem, where captured communications are twisted to convict people, with defense lawyers trying to untwist them.

Rosenstein’s claim may be true, that a lot of criminals will go free because the other electronic data isn’t convincing enough. But I’d need to see that claim backed up with hard studies, not thrown out for emotional impact.

Terrorists and child molesters

You can always tell the lack of seriousness of law enforcement when they bring up terrorists and child molesters.
To be fair, sometimes we do need to talk about terrorists. There are things unique to terrorism where me may need to give government explicit powers to address those unique concerns. For example, the NSA buys mobile phone 0day exploits in order to hack terrorist leaders in tribal areas. This is a good thing.
But when terrorists use encryption the same way everyone else does, then it’s not a unique reason to sacrifice our freedoms to give the police extra powers. Either it’s a good idea for all crimes or no crimes — there’s nothing particular about terrorism that makes it an exceptional crime. Dead people are dead. Any rational view of the problem relegates terrorism to be a minor problem. More citizens have died since September 8, 2001 from their own furniture than from terrorism. According to studies, the hot water from the tap is more of a threat to you than terrorists.
Yes, government should do what they can to protect us from terrorists, but no, it’s not so bad of a threat that requires the imposition of a military/police state. When people use terrorism to justify their actions, it’s because they trying to form a military/police state.
A similar argument works with child porn. Here’s the thing: the pervs aren’t exchanging child porn using the services Rosenstein wants to backdoor, like Apple’s Facetime or Facebook’s WhatsApp. Instead, they are exchanging child porn using custom services they build themselves.
Again, I’m (mostly) on the side of the FBI. I support their idea of buying 0day exploits in order to hack the web browsers of visitors to the secret “PlayPen” site. This is something that’s narrow to this problem and doesn’t endanger the innocent. On the other hand, their calls for crypto backdoors endangers the innocent while doing effectively nothing to address child porn.
Terrorists and child molesters are a clichéd, non-serious excuse to appeal to our emotions to give up our rights. We should not give in to such emotions.

Definition of “backdoor”

Rosenstein claims that we shouldn’t call backdoors “backdoors”:

No one calls any of those functions [like key recovery] a “back door.”  In fact, those capabilities are marketed and sought out by many users.

He’s partly right in that we rarely refer to PGP’s key escrow feature as a “backdoor”.

But that’s because the term “backdoor” refers less to how it’s done and more to who is doing it. If I set up a recovery password with Apple, I’m the one doing it to myself, so we don’t call it a backdoor. If it’s the police, spies, hackers, or criminals, then we call it a “backdoor” — even it’s identical technology.

Wikipedia uses the key escrow feature of the 1990s Clipper Chip as a prime example of what everyone means by “backdoor“. By “no one”, Rosenstein is including Wikipedia, which is obviously incorrect.

Though in truth, it’s not going to be the same technology. The needs of law enforcement are different than my personal key escrow/backup needs. In particular, there are unsolvable problems, such as a backdoor that works for the “legitimate” law enforcement in the United States but not for the “illegitimate” police states like Russia and China.

I feel for Rosenstein, because the term “backdoor” does have a pejorative connotation, which can be considered unfair. But that’s like saying the word “murder” is a pejorative term for killing people, or “torture” is a pejorative term for torture. The bad connotation exists because we don’t like government surveillance. I mean, honestly calling this feature “government surveillance feature” is likewise pejorative, and likewise exactly what it is that we are talking about.

Providers

Rosenstein focuses his arguments on “providers”, like Snapchat or Apple. But this isn’t the question.

The question is whether a “provider” like Telegram, a Russian company beyond US law, provides this feature. Or, by extension, whether individuals should be free to install whatever software they want, regardless of provider.

Telegram is a Russian company that provides end-to-end encryption. Anybody can download their software in order to communicate so that American law enforcement can’t eavesdrop. They aren’t going to put in a backdoor for the U.S. If we succeed in putting backdoors in Apple and WhatsApp, all this means is that criminals are going to install Telegram.

If the, for some reason, the US is able to convince all such providers (including Telegram) to install a backdoor, then it still doesn’t solve the problem, as uses can just build their own end-to-end encryption app that has no provider. It’s like email: some use the major providers like GMail, others setup their own email server.

Ultimately, this means that any law mandating “crypto backdoors” is going to target users not providers. Rosenstein tries to make a comparison with what plain-old telephone companies have to do under old laws like CALEA, but that’s not what’s happening here. Instead, for such rules to have any effect, they have to punish users for what they install, not providers.

This continues the argument I made above. Government backdoors is not something that forces Internet services to eavesdrop on us — it forces us to help the government spy on ourselves.
Rosenstein tries to address this by pointing out that it’s still a win if major providers like Apple and Facetime are forced to add backdoors, because they are the most popular, and some terrorists/criminals won’t move to alternate platforms. This is false. People with good intentions, who are unfairly targeted by a police state, the ones where police abuse is rampant, are the ones who use the backdoored products. Those with bad intentions, who know they are guilty, will move to the safe products. Indeed, Telegram is already popular among terrorists because they believe American services are already all backdoored. 
Rosenstein is essentially demanding the innocent get backdoored while the guilty don’t. This seems backwards. This is backwards.

Apple is morally weak

The reason I’m writing this post is because Rosenstein makes a few claims that cannot be ignored. One of them is how he describes Apple’s response to government insistence on weakening encryption doing the opposite, strengthening encryption. He reasons this happens because:

Of course they [Apple] do. They are in the business of selling products and making money. 

We [the DoJ] use a different measure of success. We are in the business of preventing crime and saving lives. 

He swells in importance. His condescending tone ennobles himself while debasing others. But this isn’t how things work. He’s not some white knight above the peasantry, protecting us. He’s a beat cop, a civil servant, who serves us.

A better phrasing would have been:

They are in the business of giving customers what they want.

We are in the business of giving voters what they want.

Both sides are doing the same, giving people what they want. Yes, voters want safety, but they also want privacy. Rosenstein imagines that he’s free to ignore our demands for privacy as long has he’s fulfilling his duty to protect us. He has explicitly rejected what people want, “we use a different measure of success”. He imagines it’s his job to tell us where the balance between privacy and safety lies. That’s not his job, that’s our job. We, the people (and our representatives), make that decision, and it’s his job is to do what he’s told. His measure of success is how well he fulfills our wishes, not how well he satisfies his imagined criteria.

That’s why those of us on this side of the debate doubt the good intentions of those like Rosenstein. He criticizes Apple for wanting to protect our rights/freedoms, and declare they measure success differently.

They are willing to be vile

Rosenstein makes this argument:

Companies are willing to make accommodations when required by the government. Recent media reports suggest that a major American technology company developed a tool to suppress online posts in certain geographic areas in order to embrace a foreign government’s censorship policies. 

Let me translate this for you:

Companies are willing to acquiesce to vile requests made by police-states. Therefore, they should acquiesce to our vile police-state requests.

It’s Rosenstein who is admitting here is that his requests are those of a police-state.

Constitutional Rights

Rosenstein says:

There is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption.

Maybe. It’s something the courts will have to decide. There are many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment issues here.
The reason we have the Bill of Rights is because of the abuses of the British Government. For example, they quartered troops in our homes, as a way of punishing us, and as a way of forcing us to help in our own oppression. The troops weren’t there to defend us against the French, but to defend us against ourselves, to shoot us if we got out of line.

And that’s what crypto backdoors do. We are forced to be agents of our own oppression. The principles enumerated by Rosenstein apply to a wide range of even additional surveillance. With little change to his speech, it can equally argue why the constant TV video surveillance from 1984 should be made law.

Let’s go back and look at Apple. It is not some base company exploiting consumers for profit. Apple doesn’t have guns, they cannot make people buy their product. If Apple doesn’t provide customers what they want, then customers vote with their feet, and go buy an Android phone. Apple isn’t providing encryption/security in order to make a profit — it’s giving customers what they want in order to stay in business.
Conversely, if we citizens don’t like what the government does, tough luck, they’ve got the guns to enforce their edicts. We can’t easily vote with our feet and walk to another country. A “democracy” is far less democratic than capitalism. Apple is a minority, selling phones to 45% of the population, and that’s fine, the minority get the phones they want. In a Democracy, where citizens vote on the issue, those 45% are screwed, as the 55% impose their will unwanted onto the remainder.

That’s why we have the Bill of Rights, to protect the 49% against abuse by the 51%. Regardless whether the Supreme Court agrees the current Constitution, it is the sort right that might exist regardless of what the Constitution says. 

Obliged to speak the truth

Here is the another part of his speech that I feel cannot be ignored. We have to discuss this:

Those of us who swear to protect the rule of law have a different motivation.  We are obliged to speak the truth.

The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity.

This is not true. Sure, he’s obliged to say the absolute truth, in court. He’s also obliged to be truthful in general about facts in his personal life, such as not lying on his tax return (the sort of thing that can get lawyers disbarred).

But he’s not obliged to tell his spouse his honest opinion whether that new outfit makes them look fat. Likewise, Rosenstein knows his opinion on public policy doesn’t fall into this category. He can say with impunity that either global warming doesn’t exist, or that it’ll cause a biblical deluge within 5 years. Both are factually untrue, but it’s not going to get him fired.

And this particular claim is also exaggerated bunk. While everyone agrees encryption makes law enforcement’s job harder than with backdoors, nobody honestly believes it can “disable” law enforcement. While everyone agrees that encryption helps terrorists, nobody believes it can enable them to act with “impunity”.

I feel bad here. It’s a terrible thing to question your opponent’s character this way. But Rosenstein made this unavoidable when he clearly, with no ambiguity, put his integrity as Deputy Attorney General on the line behind the statement that “going dark threatens to disable law enforcement and enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity”. I feel it’s a bald face lie, but you don’t need to take my word for it. Read his own words yourself and judge his integrity.

Conclusion

Rosenstein’s speech includes repeated references to ideas like “oath”, “honor”, and “duty”. It reminds me of Col. Jessup’s speech in the movie “A Few Good Men”.

If you’ll recall, it was rousing speech, “you want me on that wall” and “you use words like honor as a punchline”. Of course, since he was violating his oath and sending two privates to death row in order to avoid being held accountable, it was Jessup himself who was crapping on the concepts of “honor”, “oath”, and “duty”.

And so is Rosenstein. He imagines himself on that wall, doing albeit terrible things, justified by his duty to protect citizens. He imagines that it’s he who is honorable, while the rest of us not, even has he utters bald faced lies to further his own power and authority.

We activists oppose crypto backdoors not because we lack honor, or because we are criminals, or because we support terrorists and child molesters. It’s because we value privacy and government officials who get corrupted by power. It’s not that we fear Trump becoming a dictator, it’s that we fear bureaucrats at Rosenstein’s level becoming drunk on authority — which Rosenstein demonstrably has. His speech is a long train of corrupt ideas pursuing the same object of despotism — a despotism we oppose.

In other words, we oppose crypto backdoors because it’s not a tool of law enforcement, but a tool of despotism.

SOPA Ghosts Hinder U.S. Pirate Site Blocking Efforts

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/sopa-ghosts-hinder-u-s-pirate-site-blocking-efforts-171008/

Website blocking has become one of the entertainment industries’ favorite anti-piracy tools.

All over the world, major movie and music industry players have gone to court demanding that ISPs take action, often with great success.

Internal MPAA research showed that website blockades help to deter piracy and former boss Chris Dodd said that they are one of the most effective anti-tools available.

While not everyone is in agreement on this, the numbers are used to lobby politicians and convince courts. Interestingly, however, nothing is happening in the United States, which is where most pirate site visitors come from.

This is baffling to many people. Why would US-based companies go out of their way to demand ISP blocking in the most exotic locations, but fail to do the same at home?

We posed this question to Neil Turkewitz, RIAA’s former Executive Vice President International, who currently runs his own consulting group.

The main reason why pirate site blocking requests have not yet been made in the United States is down to SOPA. When the proposed SOPA legislation made headlines five years ago there was a massive backlash against website blocking, which isn’t something copyright groups want to reignite.

“The legacy of SOPA is that copyright industries want to avoid resurrecting the ghosts of SOPA past, and principally focus on ways to creatively encourage cooperation with platforms, and to use existing remedies,” Turkewitz tells us.

Instead of taking the likes of Comcast and Verizon to court, the entertainment industries focused on voluntary agreements, such as the now-defunct Copyright Alerts System. However, that doesn’t mean that website blocking and domain seizures are not an option.

“SOPA made ‘website blocking’ as such a four-letter word. But this is actually fairly misleading,” Turkewitz says.

“There have been a variety of civil and criminal actions addressing the conduct of entities subject to US jurisdiction facilitating piracy, regardless of the source, including hundreds of domain seizures by DHS/ICE.”

Indeed, there are plenty of legal options already available to do much of what SOPA promised. ABS-CBN has taken over dozens of pirate site domain names through the US court system. Most recently even through an ex-parte order, meaning that the site owners had no option to defend themselves before they lost their domains.

ISP and search engine blocking is also around the corner. As we reported earlier this week, a Virginia magistrate judge recently recommended an injunction which would require search engines and Internet providers to prevent users from accessing Sci-Hub.

Still, the major movie and music companies are not yet using these tools to take on The Pirate Bay or other major pirate sites. If it’s so easy, then why not? Apparently, SOPA may still be in the back of their minds.

Interestingly, the RIAA’s former top executive wasn’t a fan of SOPA when it was first announced, as it wouldn’t do much to extend the legal remedies that were already available.

“I actually didn’t like SOPA very much since it mostly reflected existing law and maintained a paradigm that didn’t involve ISP’s in creative interdiction, and simply preserved passivity. To see it characterized as ‘copyright gone wild’ was certainly jarring and incongruous,” Turkewitz says.

Ironically, it looks like a bill that failed to pass, and didn’t impress some copyright holders to begin with, is still holding them back after five years. They’re certainly not using all the legal options available to avoid SOPA comparison. The question is, for how long?

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

Yes, Backblaze Just Ordered 100 Petabytes of Hard Drives

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/400-petabytes-cloud-storage/

10 Petabyt vault, 100 Petabytes ordered, 400 Petabytes stored

Backblaze just ordered a 100 petabytes’ worth of hard drives, and yes, we’ll use nearly all of them in Q4. In fact, we’ll begin the process of sourcing the Q1 hard drive order in the next few weeks.

What are we doing with all those hard drives? Let’s take a look.

Our First 10 Petabyte Backblaze Vault

Ken clicked the submit button and 10 Petabytes of Backblaze Cloud Storage came online ready to accept customer data. Ken (aka the Pod Whisperer), is one of our Datacenter Operations Managers at Backblaze and with that one click, he activated Backblaze Vault 1093, which was built with 1,200 Seagate 10 TB drives (model: ST10000NM0086). After formatting and configuration of the disks, there is 10.12 Petabytes of free space remaining for customer data. Back in 2011, when Ken started at Backblaze, he was amazed that we had amassed as much as 10 Petabytes of data storage.

The Seagate 10 TB drives we deployed in vault 1093 are helium-filled drives. We had previously deployed 45 HGST 8 TB helium-filled drives where we learned one of the benefits of using helium drives — they consume less power than traditional air-filled drives. Here’s a quick comparison of the power consumption of several high-density drive models we deploy:

MFR Model Fill Size Idle (1) Operating (2)
Seagate ST8000DM002 Air 8 TB 7.2 watts 9.0 watts
Seagate ST8000NM0055 Air 8 TB 7.6 watts 8.6 watts
HGST HUH728080ALE600 Helium 8 TB 5.1 watts 7.4 watts
Seagate ST10000NM0086 Helium 10 TB 4.8 watts 8.6 watts
(1) Idle: Average Idle in watts as reported by the manufacturer.
(2) Operating: The maximum operational consumption in watts as reported by the manufacturer — typically for read operations.

I’d like 100 Petabytes of Hard Drives To Go, Please

“100 Petabytes should get us through Q4.” — Tim Nufire, Chief Cloud Officer, Backblaze

The 1,200 Seagate 10 TB drives are just the beginning. The next Backblaze Vault will be configured with 12 TB drives which will give us 12.2 petabytes of storage in one vault. We are currently building and adding two to three Backblaze Vaults a month to our cloud storage system, so we are going to need more drives. When we did all of our “drive math,” we decided to place an order for 100 petabytes of hard drives comprised of 10 and 12 TB models. Gleb, our CEO and occasional blogger, exhaled mightily as he signed the biggest purchase order in company history. Wait until he sees the one for Q1.

Enough drives for a 10 petabyte vault

400 Petabytes of Cloud Storage

When we added Backblaze Vault 1093, we crossed over 400 Petabytes of total available storage. For those of you keeping score at home, we reached 350 Petabytes about 3 months ago as you can see in the chart below.

Petabytes of data stored by Backblaze

Backblaze Vault Primer

All of the storage capacity we’ve added in the last two years has been on our Backblaze Vault architecture, with vault 1093 being the 60th one we have placed into service. Each Backblaze Vault is comprised of 20 Backblaze Storage Pods logically grouped together into one storage system. Today, each Storage Pod contains sixty 3 ½” hard drives, giving each vault 1,200 drives. Early vaults were built on Storage Pods with 45 hard drives, for a total of 900 drives in a vault.

A Backblaze Vault accepts data directly from an authenticated user. Each data blob (object, file, group of files) is divided into 20 shards (17 data shards and 3 parity shards) using our erasure coding library. Each of the 20 shards is stored on a different Storage Pod in the vault. At any given time, several vaults stand ready to receive data storage requests.

Drive Stats for the New Drives

In our Q3 2017 Drive Stats report, due out in late October, we’ll start reporting on the 10 TB drives we are adding. It looks like the 12 TB drives will come online in Q4. We’ll also get a better look at the 8 TB consumer and enterprise drives we’ve been following. Stay tuned.

Other Big Data Clouds

We have always been transparent here at Backblaze, including about how much data we store, how we store it, even how much it costs to do so. Very few others do the same. But, if you have information on how much data a company or organization stores in the cloud, let us know in the comments. Please include the source and make sure the data is not considered proprietary. If we get enough tidbits we’ll publish a “big cloud” list.

The post Yes, Backblaze Just Ordered 100 Petabytes of Hard Drives appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

No, Google Drive is Definitely Not The New Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/no-google-drive-is-definitely-not-the-new-pirate-bay-170910/

Running close to two decades old, the world of true mainstream file-sharing is less of a mystery to the general public than it’s ever been.

Most people now understand the concept of shifting files from one place to another, and a significant majority will be aware of the opportunities to do so with infringing content.

Unsurprisingly, this is a major thorn in the side of rightsholders all over the world, who have been scrambling since the turn of the century in a considerable effort to stem the tide. The results of their work have varied, with some sectors hit harder than others.

One area that has taken a bit of a battering recently involves the dominant peer-to-peer platforms reliant on underlying BitTorrent transfers. Several large-scale sites have shut down recently, not least KickassTorrents, Torrentz, and ExtraTorrent, raising questions of what bad news may arrive next for inhabitants of Torrent Land.

Of course, like any other Internet-related activity, sharing has continued to evolve over the years, with streaming and cloud-hosting now a major hit with consumers. In the main, sites which skirt the borders of legality have been the major hosting and streaming players over the years, but more recently it’s become clear that even the most legitimate companies can become unwittingly involved in the piracy scene.

As reported here on TF back in 2014 and again several times this year (1,2,3), cloud-hosting services operated by Google, including Google Drive, are being used to store and distribute pirate content.

That news was echoed again this week, with a report on Gadgets360 reiterating that Google Drive is still being used for movie piracy. What followed were a string of follow up reports, some of which declared Google’s service to be ‘The New Pirate Bay.’

No. Just no.

While it’s always tempting for publications to squeeze a reference to The Pirate Bay into a piracy article due to the site’s popularity, it’s particularly out of place in this comparison. In no way, shape, or form can a centralized store of data like Google Drive ever replace the underlying technology of sites like The Pirate Bay.

While the casual pirate might love the idea of streaming a movie with a couple of clicks to a browser of his or her choice, the weakness of the cloud system cannot be understated. To begin with, anything hosted by Google is vulnerable to immediate takedown on demand, usually within a matter of hours.

“Google Drive has a variety of piracy counter-measures in place,” a spokesperson told Mashable this week, “and we are continuously working to improve our protections to prevent piracy across all of our products.”

When will we ever hear anything like that from The Pirate Bay? Answer: When hell freezes over. But it’s not just compliance with takedown requests that make Google Drive-hosted files vulnerable.

At the point Google Drive responds to a takedown request, it takes down the actual file. On the other hand, even if Pirate Bay responded to notices (which it doesn’t), it would be unable to do anything about the sharing going on underneath. Removing a torrent file or magnet link from TPB does nothing to negatively affect the decentralized swarm of people sharing files among themselves. Those files stay intact and sharing continues, no matter what happens to the links above.

Importantly, people sharing using BitTorrent do so without any need for central servers – the whole process is decentralized as long as a user can lay his or her hands on a torrent file or magnet link. Those using Google Drive, however, rely on a totally centralized system, where not only is Google king, but it can and will stop the entire party after receiving a few lines of text from a rightsholder.

There is a very good reason why sites like The Pirate Bay have been around for close to 15 years while platforms such as Megaupload, Hotfile, Rapidshare, and similar platforms have all met their makers. File-hosting platforms are expensive-to-run warehouses full of files, each of which brings direct liability for their hosts, once they’re made aware that those files are infringing. These days the choice is clear – take the files down or get brought down, it’s as simple as that.

The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, is nothing more than a treasure map (albeit a valuable one) that points the way to content spread all around the globe in the most decentralized way possible. There are no files to delete, no content to disappear. Comparing a vulnerable Google Drive to this kind of robust system couldn’t be further from the mark.

That being said, this is the way things are going. The cloud, it seems, is here to stay in all its forms. Everyone has access to it and uploading content is easier – much easier – than uploading it to a BitTorrent network. A Google Drive upload is simplicity itself for anyone with a mouse and a file; the same cannot be said about The Pirate Bay.

For this reason alone, platforms like Google Drive and the many dozens of others offering a similar service will continue to become havens for pirated content, until the next big round of legislative change. At the moment, each piece of content has to be removed individually but in the future, it’s possible that pre-emptive filters will kill uploads of pirated content before they see the light of day.

When this comes to pass, millions of people will understand why Google Drive, with its bots checking every file upload for alleged infringement, is not The Pirate Bay. At this point, if people have left it too long, it might be too late to reinvigorate BitTorrent networks to their former glory.

People will try to rebuild them, of course, but realizing why they shouldn’t have been left behind at all is probably the best protection.

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

New Network Load Balancer – Effortless Scaling to Millions of Requests per Second

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-network-load-balancer-effortless-scaling-to-millions-of-requests-per-second/

Elastic Load Balancing (ELB)) has been an important part of AWS since 2009, when it was launched as part of a three-pack that also included Auto Scaling and Amazon CloudWatch. Since that time we have added many features, and also introduced the Application Load Balancer. Designed to support application-level, content-based routing to applications that run in containers, Application Load Balancers pair well with microservices, streaming, and real-time workloads.

Over the years, our customers have used ELB to support web sites and applications that run at almost any scale — from simple sites running on a T2 instance or two, all the way up to complex applications that run on large fleets of higher-end instances and handle massive amounts of traffic. Behind the scenes, ELB monitors traffic and automatically scales to meet demand. This process, which includes a generous buffer of headroom, has become quicker and more responsive over the years and works well even for our customers who use ELB to support live broadcasts, “flash” sales, and holidays. However, in some situations such as instantaneous fail-over between regions, or extremely spiky workloads, we have worked with our customers to pre-provision ELBs in anticipation of a traffic surge.

New Network Load Balancer
Today we are introducing the new Network Load Balancer (NLB). It is designed to handle tens of millions of requests per second while maintaining high throughput at ultra low latency, with no effort on your part. The Network Load Balancer is API-compatible with the Application Load Balancer, including full programmatic control of Target Groups and Targets. Here are some of the most important features:

Static IP Addresses – Each Network Load Balancer provides a single IP address for each VPC subnet in its purview. If you have targets in a subnet in us-west-2a and other targets in a subnet in us-west-2c, NLB will create and manage two IP addresses (one per subnet); connections to that IP address will spread traffic across the instances in the subnet. You can also specify an existing Elastic IP for each subnet for even greater control. With full control over your IP addresses, Network Load Balancer can be used in situations where IP addresses need to be hard-coded into DNS records, customer firewall rules, and so forth.

Zonality – The IP-per-subnet feature reduces latency with improved performance, improves availability through isolation and fault tolerance and makes the use of Network Load Balancers transparent to your client applications. Network Load Balancers also attempt to route a series of requests from a particular source to targets in a single subnet while still allowing automatic failover.

Source Address Preservation – With Network Load Balancer, the original source IP address and source ports for the incoming connections remain unmodified, so application software need not support X-Forwarded-For, proxy protocol, or other workarounds. This also means that normal firewall rules, including VPC Security Groups, can be used on targets.

Long-running Connections – NLB handles connections with built-in fault tolerance, and can handle connections that are open for months or years, making them a great fit for IoT, gaming, and messaging applications.

Failover – Powered by Route 53 health checks, NLB supports failover between IP addresses within and across regions.

Creating a Network Load Balancer
I can create a Network Load Balancer opening up the EC2 Console, selecting Load Balancers, and clicking on Create Load Balancer:

I choose Network Load Balancer and click on Create, then enter the details. I can choose an Elastic IP address for each subnet in the target VPC and I can tag the Network Load Balancer:

Then I click on Configure Routing and create a new target group. I enter a name, and then choose the protocol and port. I can also set up health checks that go to the traffic port or to the alternate of my choice:

Then I click on Register Targets and the EC2 instances that will receive traffic, and click on Add to registered:

I make sure that everything looks good and then click on Create:

The state of my new Load Balancer is provisioning, switching to active within a minute or so:

For testing purposes, I simply grab the DNS name of the Load Balancer from the console (in practice I would use Amazon Route 53 and a more friendly name):

Then I sent it a ton of traffic (I intended to let it run for just a second or two but got distracted and it created a huge number of processes, so this was a happy accident):

$ while true;
> do
>   wget http://nlb-1-6386cc6bf24701af.elb.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/phpinfo2.php &
> done

A more disciplined test would use a tool like Bees with Machine Guns, of course!

I took a quick break to let some traffic flow and then checked the CloudWatch metrics for my Load Balancer, finding that it was able to handle the sudden onslaught of traffic with ease:

I also looked at my EC2 instances to see how they were faring under the load (really well, it turns out):

It turns out that my colleagues did run a more disciplined test than I did. They set up a Network Load Balancer and backed it with an Auto Scaled fleet of EC2 instances. They set up a second fleet composed of hundreds of EC2 instances, each running Bees with Machine Guns and configured to generate traffic with highly variable request and response sizes. Beginning at 1.5 million requests per second, they quickly turned the dial all the way up, reaching over 3 million requests per second and 30 Gbps of aggregate bandwidth before maxing out their test resources.

Choosing a Load Balancer
As always, you should consider the needs of your application when you choose a load balancer. Here are some guidelines:

Network Load Balancer (NLB) – Ideal for load balancing of TCP traffic, NLB is capable of handling millions of requests per second while maintaining ultra-low latencies. NLB is optimized to handle sudden and volatile traffic patterns while using a single static IP address per Availability Zone.

Application Load Balancer (ALB) – Ideal for advanced load balancing of HTTP and HTTPS traffic, ALB provides advanced request routing that supports modern application architectures, including microservices and container-based applications.

Classic Load Balancer (CLB) – Ideal for applications that were built within the EC2-Classic network.

For a side-by-side feature comparison, see the Elastic Load Balancer Details table.

If you are currently using a Classic Load Balancer and would like to migrate to a Network Load Balancer, take a look at our new Load Balancer Copy Utility. This Python tool will help you to create a Network Load Balancer with the same configuration as an existing Classic Load Balancer. It can also register your existing EC2 instances with the new load balancer.

Pricing & Availability
Like the Application Load Balancer, pricing is based on Load Balancer Capacity Units, or LCUs. Billing is $0.006 per LCU, based on the highest value seen across the following dimensions:

  • Bandwidth – 1 GB per LCU.
  • New Connections – 800 per LCU.
  • Active Connections – 100,000 per LCU.

Most applications are bandwidth-bound and should see a cost reduction (for load balancing) of about 25% when compared to Application or Classic Load Balancers.

Network Load Balancers are available today in all AWS commercial regions except China (Beijing), supported by AWS CloudFormation, Auto Scaling, and Amazon ECS.

Jeff;

 

Russian Hacking Tools Codenamed WhiteBear Exposed

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/09/russian_hacking.html

Kaspersky Labs exposed a highly sophisticated set of hacking tools from Russia called WhiteBear.

From February to September 2016, WhiteBear activity was narrowly focused on embassies and consular operations around the world. All of these early WhiteBear targets were related to embassies and diplomatic/foreign affair organizations. Continued WhiteBear activity later shifted to include defense-related organizations into June 2017. When compared to WhiteAtlas infections, WhiteBear deployments are relatively rare and represent a departure from the broader Skipper Turla target set. Additionally, a comparison of the WhiteAtlas framework to WhiteBear components indicates that the malware is the product of separate development efforts. WhiteBear infections appear to be preceded by a condensed spearphishing dropper, lack Firefox extension installer payloads, and contain several new components signed with a new code signing digital certificate, unlike WhiteAtlas incidents and modules.

The exact delivery vector for WhiteBear components is unknown to us, although we have very strong suspicion the group spearphished targets with malicious pdf files. The decoy pdf document above was likely stolen from a target or partner. And, although WhiteBear components have been consistently identified on a subset of systems previously targeted with the WhiteAtlas framework, and maintain components within the same filepaths and can maintain identical filenames, we were unable to firmly tie delivery to any specific WhiteAtlas component. WhiteBear focused on various embassies and diplomatic entities around the world in early 2016 — tellingly, attempts were made to drop and display decoy pdf’s with full diplomatic headers and content alongside executable droppers on target systems.

One of the clever things the tool does is use hijacked satellite connections for command and control, helping it evade detection by broad surveillance capabilities like what what NSA uses. We’ve seen Russian attack tools that do this before. More details are in the Kaspersky blog post.

Given all the trouble Kaspersky is having because of its association with Russia, it’s interesting to speculate on this disclosure. Either they are independent, and have burned a valuable Russian hacking toolset. Or the Russians decided that the toolset was already burned — maybe the NSA knows all about it and has neutered it somehow — and allowed Kaspersky to publish. Or maybe it’s something in between. That’s the problem with this kind of speculation: without any facts, your theories just amplify whatever opinion you had previously.

Oddly, there hasn’t been much press about this. I have only found one story.

EDITED TO ADD: A colleague pointed out to me that Kaspersky announcements like this often get ignored by the press. There was very little written about ProjectSauron, for example.

EDITED TO ADD: The text I originally wrote said that Kaspersky released the attacks tools, like what Shadow Brokers is doing. They did not. They just exposed the existence of them. Apologies for that error — it was sloppy wording.

Hard Drive Stats for Q2 2017

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-failure-stats-q2-2017/

Backblaze Drive Stats Q2 2017

In this update, we’ll review the Q2 2017 and lifetime hard drive failure rates for all our current drive models. We also look at how our drive migration strategy is changing the drives we use and we’ll check in on our enterprise class drives to see how they are doing. Along the way we’ll share our observations and insights and as always we welcome your comments and critiques.

Since our last report for Q1 2017, we have added 635 additional hard drives to bring us to the 83,151 drives we’ll focus on. In Q1 we added over 10,000 new drives to the mix, so adding just 635 in Q2 seems “odd.” In fact, we added 4,921 new drives and retired 4,286 old drives as we migrated from lower density drives to higher density drives. We cover more about migrations later on, but first let’s look at the Q2 quarterly stats.

Hard Drive Stats for Q2 2017

We’ll begin our review by looking at the statistics for the period of April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 (Q2 2017). This table includes 17 different 3 ½” drive models that were operational during the indicated period, ranging in size from 3 to 8 TB.

Quarterly Hard Drive Failure Rates for Q2 2017

When looking at the quarterly numbers, remember to look for those drives with at least 50,000 drive hours for the quarter. That works out to about 550 drives running the entire quarter. That’s a good sample size. If the sample size is below that, the failure rates can be skewed based on a small change in the number of drive failures.

As noted previously, we use the quarterly numbers to look for trends. So this time we’ve included a trend indicator in the table. The “Q2Q Trend” column is short for quarter-to-quarter trend, i.e. last quarter to this quarter. We can add, change, or delete trend columns depending on community interest. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Good Migrations

In Q2 we continued with our data migration program. For us, a drive migration means we intentionally remove a good drive from service and replace it with another drive. Drives that are removed via migrations are not counted as failed. Once they are removed they stop accumulating drive hours and other stats in our system.

There are three primary drivers for our migration program.

  1. Increase Storage Density – For example, in Q3 we replaced 3 TB drives with 8 TB drives, more than doubling the amount of storage in a given Storage Pod for the same footprint. The cost of electricity was nominally more with the 8 TB drives, but the increase in density more than offset the additional cost. For those interested you can read more about the cost of cloud storage here.
  2. Backblaze Vaults – Our Vault architecture has proven to be more cost effective over the past two years than using stand-alone Storage Pods. A major goal of the migration program is to have the entire Backblaze cloud deployed on the highly efficient and resilient Backblaze Vault architecture.
  3. Balancing the Load – With our Phoenix data center online and accepting data, we have migrated some systems to the Phoenix DC. Don’t worry, we didn’t put your data on a truck and drive it to Phoenix. We simply built new systems there and transferred the data from our Northern California DC. In the process, we are gaining valuable insights as we move towards being able to replicate data between the two data centers.
During Q2 we migrated nearly 30 Petabytes of data.

During Q2 we migrated the data on 155 systems, giving nearly 30 petabytes of data a new, more durable, place to call home. There are still 644 individual Storage Pods (Storage Pod Classics, as we call them) left to migrate to the Backblaze Vault architecture.

Just in case you don’t know, a Backblaze Vault is a logical collection of 20 beefy Storage Pods (not Classics). Using our own Reed-Solomon erasure coding library, data is spread out across the 20 Pods into 17 data shards and 3 parity shards. The data and parity shards of each arriving data blob can be stored on different Storage Pods in a given Backblaze Vault.

Lifetime Hard Drive Failure Rates for Current Drives

The table below shows the failure rates for the hard drive models we had in service as of June 30, 2017. This is over the period beginning in April 2013 and ending June 30, 2017. If you are interested in the hard drive failure rates for all the hard drives we’ve used over the years, please refer to our 2016 hard drive review.

Cumulative Hard Drive Failure Rates

Enterprise vs Consumer Drives

We added 3,595 enterprise class 8 TB drives in Q2 bringing our total to 6,054 drives. You may be tempted to compare the failure rates of the 8 TB enterprise drive (model: ST8000NM005) to the consumer 8 TB drive (model: ST8000DM002), and conclude the enterprise drives fail at a higher rate. Let’s not jump to that conclusion yet, as the average operational age of the enterprise drives is only 2.11 months.

There are some insights we can gain from the current data. The enterprise drives have 363,282 drives hours and an annualized failure rate of 1.61%. If we look back at our data, we find that as of Q3 2016, the 8 TB consumer drives had 422,263 drive hours with an annualized failure rate of 1.60%. That means that when both drive models had a similar number of drive hours, they had nearly the same annualized failure rate. There are no conclusions to be made here, but the observation is worth considering as we gather data for our comparison.

Next quarter, we should have enough data to compare the 8 TB drives, but by then the 8TB drives could be “antiques.” In the next week or so, we’ll be installing 12 TB hard drives in a Backblaze Vault. Each 60-drive Storage Pod in the Vault would have 720 TB of storage available and a 20-pod Backblaze Vault would have 14.4 petabytes of raw storage.

Better Late Than Never

Sorry for being a bit late with the hard drive stats report this quarter. We were ready to go last week, then this happened. Some folks here thought that was more important than our Q2 Hard Drive Stats. Go figure.

Drive Stats at the Storage Developers Conference

We will be presenting at the Storage Developers Conference in Santa Clara on Monday September 11th at 8:30am. We’ll be reviewing our drive stats along with some interesting observations from the SMART stats we also collect. The conference is the leading event for technical discussions and education on the latest storage technologies and standards. Come join us.

The Data For This Review

If you are interested in the data from the two tables in this review, you can download an Excel spreadsheet containing the two tables. Note: the domain for this download will be f001.backblazeb2.com.

You also can download the entire data set we use for these reports from our Hard Drive Test Data page. You can download and use this data for free for your own purposes. All we ask are three things: 1) you cite Backblaze as the source if you use the data, 2) you accept that you are solely responsible for how you use the data, and 3) you do not sell this data to anyone. It is free.

Good luck, and let us know if you find anything interesting.

The post Hard Drive Stats for Q2 2017 appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

A Poloniex / Bitfinex cryptocurrency lending bot

Post Syndicated from Григор original http://www.gatchev.info/blog/?p=2074

… offering its services. Its site is http://beebot.zavinagi.org .

The bot already has some clients and manages their loans quite well. (As well as mine.) If you want your crypto to bring you the best interest that can be obtained, with no effort from you at all, be welcome! 🙂

The bot can manage your cryptocurrencies at the popular exchanges Poloniex and Bitfinex. All it needs from you is an API key that allows it to manage loans (and does NOT allow withdrawing or trading the funds!). Has plenty of settings that allow tuning its work to your taste. Has also a lot of loaning-related data, both current and historical, that you can find nowhere else.

Is it good? I believe so. In my comparisons, it appears at least as good as the best and most established lending bots around. Constant tracking of the optimal loan interest is only where it starts. It varies the lending period to ensure biggest probability for and most exposure to high-interest lending. It analyses the situation and tries to predict optimal interest movement. It tries to detect attempts to manipulate the lending interests and takes appropriate measures… The list is pretty long.

The usage tax is 10% of the interest earned by the loans secured by the bot. This is only a small part of the benefits it provides. If you would like to manage through it bigger sums (eg. BTC 100 and up), we can negotiate a lower tax – write me at ‘grigor’ in the site you read this blog post in. 🙂

Nazis, are bad

Post Syndicated from Eevee original https://eev.ee/blog/2017/08/13/nazis-are-bad/

Anonymous asks:

Could you talk about something related to the management/moderation and growth of online communities? IOW your thoughts on online community management, if any.

I think you’ve tweeted about this stuff in the past so I suspect you have thoughts on this, but if not, again, feel free to just blog about … anything 🙂

Oh, I think I have some stuff to say about community management, in light of recent events. None of it hasn’t already been said elsewhere, but I have to get this out.

Hopefully the content warning is implicit in the title.


I am frustrated.

I’ve gone on before about a particularly bothersome phenomenon that hurts a lot of small online communities: often, people are willing to tolerate the misery of others in a community, but then get up in arms when someone pushes back. Someone makes a lot of off-hand, off-color comments about women? Uses a lot of dog-whistle terms? Eh, they’re not bothering anyone, or at least not bothering me. Someone else gets tired of it and tells them to knock it off? Whoa there! Now we have the appearance of conflict, which is unacceptable, and people will turn on the person who’s pissed off — even though they’ve been at the butt end of an invisible conflict for who knows how long. The appearance of peace is paramount, even if it means a large chunk of the population is quietly miserable.

Okay, so now, imagine that on a vastly larger scale, and also those annoying people who know how to skirt the rules are Nazis.


The label “Nazi” gets thrown around a lot lately, probably far too easily. But when I see a group of people doing the Hitler salute, waving large Nazi flags, wearing Nazi armbands styled after the SS, well… if the shoe fits, right? I suppose they might have flown across the country to join a torch-bearing mob ironically, but if so, the joke is going way over my head. (Was the murder ironic, too?) Maybe they’re not Nazis in the sense that the original party doesn’t exist any more, but for ease of writing, let’s refer to “someone who espouses Nazi ideology and deliberately bears a number of Nazi symbols” as, well, “a Nazi”.

This isn’t a new thing, either; I’ve stumbled upon any number of Twitter accounts that are decorated in Nazi regalia. I suppose the trouble arises when perfectly innocent members of the alt-right get unfairly labelled as Nazis.

But hang on; this march was called “Unite the Right” and was intended to bring together various far right sub-groups. So what does their choice of aesthetic say about those sub-groups? I haven’t heard, say, alt-right coiner Richard Spencer denounce the use of Nazi symbology — extra notable since he was fucking there and apparently didn’t care to discourage it.


And so begins the rule-skirting. “Nazi” is definitely overused, but even using it to describe white supremacists who make not-so-subtle nods to Hitler is likely to earn you some sarcastic derailment. A Nazi? Oh, so is everyone you don’t like and who wants to establish a white ethno state a Nazi?

Calling someone a Nazi — or even a white supremacist — is an attack, you see. Merely expressing the desire that people of color not exist is perfectly peaceful, but identifying the sentiment for what it is causes visible discord, which is unacceptable.

These clowns even know this sort of thing and strategize around it. Or, try, at least. Maybe it wasn’t that successful this weekend — though flicking through Charlottesville headlines now, they seem to be relatively tame in how they refer to the ralliers.

I’m reminded of a group of furries — the alt-furries — who have been espousing white supremacy and wearing red armbands with a white circle containing a black… pawprint. Ah, yes, that’s completely different.


So, what to do about this?

Ignore them” is a popular option, often espoused to bullied children by parents who have never been bullied, shortly before they resume complaining about passive-aggressive office politics. The trouble with ignoring them is that, just like in smaller communitiest, they have a tendency to fester. They take over large chunks of influential Internet surface area like 4chan and Reddit; they help get an inept buffoon elected; and then they start to have torch-bearing rallies and run people over with cars.

4chan illustrates a kind of corollary here. Anyone who’s steeped in Internet Culture™ is surely familiar with 4chan; I was never a regular visitor, but it had enough influence that I was still aware of it and some of its culture. It was always thick with irony, which grew into a sort of ironic detachment — perhaps one of the major sources of the recurring online trope that having feelings is bad — which proceeded into ironic racism.

And now the ironic racism is indistinguishable from actual racism, as tends to be the case. Do they “actually” “mean it”, or are they just trying to get a rise out of people? What the hell is unironic racism if not trying to get a rise out of people? What difference is there to onlookers, especially as they move to become increasingly involved with politics?

It’s just a joke” and “it was just a thoughtless comment” are exceptionally common defenses made by people desperate to preserve the illusion of harmony, but the strain of overt white supremacy currently running rampant through the US was built on those excuses.


The other favored option is to debate them, to defeat their ideas with better ideas.

Well, hang on. What are their ideas, again? I hear they were chanting stuff like “go back to Africa” and “fuck you, faggots”. Given that this was an overtly political rally (and again, the Nazi fucking regalia), I don’t think it’s a far cry to describe their ideas as “let’s get rid of black people and queer folks”.

This is an underlying proposition: that white supremacy is inherently violent. After all, if the alt-right seized total political power, what would they do with it? If I asked the same question of Democrats or Republicans, I’d imagine answers like “universal health care” or “screw over poor people”. But people whose primary goal is to have a country full of only white folks? What are they going to do, politely ask everyone else to leave? They’re invoking the memory of people who committed genocide and also tried to take over the fucking world. They are outright saying, these are the people we look up to, this is who we think had a great idea.

How, precisely, does one defeat these ideas with rational debate?

Because the underlying core philosophy beneath all this is: “it would be good for me if everything were about me”. And that’s true! (Well, it probably wouldn’t work out how they imagine in practice, but it’s true enough.) Consider that slavery is probably fantastic if you’re the one with the slaves; the issue is that it’s reprehensible, not that the very notion contains some kind of 101-level logical fallacy. That’s probably why we had a fucking war over it instead of hashing it out over brunch.

…except we did hash it out over brunch once, and the result was that slavery was still allowed but slaves only counted as 60% of a person for the sake of counting how much political power states got. So that’s how rational debate worked out. I’m sure the slaves were thrilled with that progress.


That really only leaves pushing back, which raises the question of how to push back.

And, I don’t know. Pushing back is much harder in spaces you don’t control, spaces you’re already struggling to justify your own presence in. For most people, that’s most spaces. It’s made all the harder by that tendency to preserve illusory peace; even the tamest request that someone knock off some odious behavior can be met by pushback, even by third parties.

At the same time, I’m aware that white supremacists prey on disillusioned young white dudes who feel like they don’t fit in, who were promised the world and inherited kind of a mess. Does criticism drive them further away? The alt-right also opposes “political correctness”, i.e. “not being a fucking asshole”.

God knows we all suck at this kind of behavior correction, even within our own in-groups. Fandoms have become almost ridiculously vicious as platforms like Twitter and Tumblr amplify individual anger to deafening levels. It probably doesn’t help that we’re all just exhausted, that every new fuck-up feels like it bears the same weight as the last hundred combined.

This is the part where I admit I don’t know anything about people and don’t have any easy answers. Surprise!


The other alternative is, well, punching Nazis.

That meme kind of haunts me. It raises really fucking complicated questions about when violence is acceptable, in a culture that’s completely incapable of answering them.

America’s relationship to violence is so bizarre and two-faced as to be almost incomprehensible. We worship it. We have the biggest military in the world by an almost comical margin. It’s fairly mainstream to own deadly weapons for the express stated purpose of armed revolution against the government, should that become necessary, where “necessary” is left ominously undefined. Our movies are about explosions and beating up bad guys; our video games are about explosions and shooting bad guys. We fantasize about solving foreign policy problems by nuking someone — hell, our talking heads are currently in polite discussion about whether we should nuke North Korea and annihilate up to twenty-five million people, as punishment for daring to have the bomb that only we’re allowed to have.

But… violence is bad.

That’s about as far as the other side of the coin gets. It’s bad. We condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Also, guess who we bombed today?

I observe that the one time Nazis were a serious threat, America was happy to let them try to take over the world until their allies finally showed up on our back porch.

Maybe I don’t understand what “violence” means. In a quest to find out why people are talking about “leftist violence” lately, I found a National Review article from May that twice suggests blocking traffic is a form of violence. Anarchists have smashed some windows and set a couple fires at protests this year — and, hey, please knock that crap off? — which is called violence against, I guess, Starbucks. Black Lives Matter could be throwing a birthday party and Twitter would still be abuzz with people calling them thugs.

Meanwhile, there’s a trend of murderers with increasingly overt links to the alt-right, and everyone is still handling them with kid gloves. First it was murders by people repeating their talking points; now it’s the culmination of a torches-and-pitchforks mob. (Ah, sorry, not pitchforks; assault rifles.) And we still get this incredibly bizarre both-sides-ism, a White House that refers to the people who didn’t murder anyone as “just as violent if not more so“.


Should you punch Nazis? I don’t know. All I know is that I’m extremely dissatisfied with discourse that’s extremely alarmed by hypothetical punches — far more mundane than what you’d see after a sporting event — but treats a push for ethnic cleansing as a mere difference of opinion.

The equivalent to a punch in an online space is probably banning, which is almost laughable in comparison. It doesn’t cause physical harm, but it is a use of concrete force. Doesn’t pose quite the same moral quandary, though.

Somewhere in the middle is the currently popular pastime of doxxing (doxxxxxxing) people spotted at the rally in an attempt to get them fired or whatever. Frankly, that skeeves me out, though apparently not enough that I’m directly chastizing anyone for it.


We aren’t really equipped, as a society, to deal with memetic threats. We aren’t even equipped to determine what they are. We had a fucking world war over this, and now people are outright saying “hey I’m like those people we went and killed a lot in that world war” and we give them interviews and compliment their fashion sense.

A looming question is always, what if they then do it to you? What if people try to get you fired, to punch you for your beliefs?

I think about that a lot, and then I remember that it’s perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in half the country. (Courts are currently wrangling whether Title VII forbids this, but with the current administration, I’m not optimistic.) I know people who’ve been fired for coming out as trans. I doubt I’d have to look very far to find someone who’s been punched for either reason.

And these aren’t even beliefs; they’re just properties of a person. You can stop being a white supremacist, one of those people yelling “fuck you, faggots”.

So I have to recuse myself from this asinine question, because I can’t fairly judge the risk of retaliation when it already happens to people I care about.

Meanwhile, if a white supremacist does get punched, I absolutely still want my tax dollars to pay for their universal healthcare.


The same wrinkle comes up with free speech, which is paramount.

The ACLU reminds us that the First Amendment “protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech”. I think they’ve forgotten that that’s a side effect, not the goal. No one sat down and suggested that protecting vile speech was some kind of noble cause, yet that’s how we seem to be treating it.

The point was to avoid a situation where the government is arbitrarily deciding what qualifies as vile, hateful, and ignorant, and was using that power to eliminate ideas distasteful to politicians. You know, like, hypothetically, if they interrogated and jailed a bunch of people for supporting the wrong economic system. Or convicted someone under the Espionage Act for opposing the draft. (Hey, that’s where the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” line comes from.)

But these are ideas that are already in the government. Bannon, a man who was chair of a news organization he himself called “the platform for the alt-right”, has the President’s ear! How much more mainstream can you get?

So again I’m having a little trouble balancing “we need to defend the free speech of white supremacists or risk losing it for everyone” against “we fairly recently were ferreting out communists and the lingering public perception is that communists are scary, not that the government is”.


This isn’t to say that freedom of speech is bad, only that the way we talk about it has become fanatical to the point of absurdity. We love it so much that we turn around and try to apply it to corporations, to platforms, to communities, to interpersonal relationships.

Look at 4chan. It’s completely public and anonymous; you only get banned for putting the functioning of the site itself in jeopardy. Nothing is stopping a larger group of people from joining its politics board and tilting sentiment the other way — except that the current population is so odious that no one wants to be around them. Everyone else has evaporated away, as tends to happen.

Free speech is great for a government, to prevent quashing politics that threaten the status quo (except it’s a joke and they’ll do it anyway). People can’t very readily just bail when the government doesn’t like them, anyway. It’s also nice to keep in mind to some degree for ubiquitous platforms. But the smaller you go, the easier it is for people to evaporate away, and the faster pure free speech will turn the place to crap. You’ll be left only with people who care about nothing.


At the very least, it seems clear that the goal of white supremacists is some form of destabilization, of disruption to the fabric of a community for purely selfish purposes. And those are the kinds of people you want to get rid of as quickly as possible.

Usually this is hard, because they act just nicely enough to create some plausible deniability. But damn, if someone is outright telling you they love Hitler, maybe skip the principled hand-wringing and eject them.

Getting Your Data into the Cloud is Just the Beginning

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/cost-data-of-transfer-cloud-storage/

Total Cloud Storage Cost

Organizations should consider not just the cost of getting their data into the cloud, but also long-term costs for storage and retrieval when deciding which cloud storage solution meets their needs.

As cloud storage has become ubiquitous, organizations large and small are joining in. For larger organizations the lure of reducing capital expenses and their associated operational costs is enticing. For smaller organizations, cloud storage often replaces an unmanageable closet full of external hard drives, thumb drives, SD cards, and other devices. With terabytes or even petabytes of data, the common challenge facing organizations, large and small, is how to get their data up to the cloud.

Transferring Data to the Cloud

The obvious solution for getting your data to the cloud is to upload your data from your internal network through the internet to the cloud storage vendor you’ve selected. Cloud storage vendors don’t charge you for uploading your data to their cloud, but you, of course, have to pay your network provider and that’s where things start to get interesting. Here are a few things to consider.

  • The initial upload: Unless you are just starting out, you will have a large amount of data you want to upload to the cloud. This could be data you wish to archive or have had archived previously, for example data stored on LTO tapes or kept stored on external hard drives.
  • Pipe size: This is the amount of upload bandwidth of your network connection. This is measured in Mbps (megabits per second). Remember, your data is stored in MB (megabytes), so an upload connection of 80 Mbps will transfer no more than 10 MB of data per second and most likely a lot less.
  • Cost and caps: In some places, organizations pay a flat monthly rate for a specified level of service (speed) for internet access. In other locations, internet access is metered, or pay as you go. In either case, there can be internet service caps that limit or completely stop data transfer once you reach your contracted threshold.

One or more of these challenges has the potential to make the initial upload of your data expensive and potentially impossible. You could wait until cloud storage companies start buying up internet providers and make data upload cheap (or free with Amazon Prime!), but there is another option.

Data Transfer Devices

Given the potential challenges of using your network for the initial upload of your data to the cloud, a handful of cloud storage companies have introduced data transfer or data ingest services. Backblaze has the B2 Fireball, Amazon has Snowball (and other similar devices), and Google recently introduced their Transfer Appliance.

KLRU-TV Austin PBS uploaded their Austin City Limits musical anthology series to Backblaze using a B2 Fireball.

These services work as follows:

  • The provider sends you a portable (or somewhat portable) storage device.
  • You connect the device to your network and load some amount of data on the device over your internal network connection.
  • You return the device, loaded with your data, to the provider, who uploads your data to your cloud storage account from inside their own data center.

Data Transfer Devices Save Time

Assuming your Internet connection is a flat rate service that has no caps or limits and your organizational operations can withstand the traffic, you still may want to opt to use a data transfer service to move your data to the cloud. Why? Time. For example, if your initial data upload is 100 TB here’s how long it would take using different network upload connection speeds:

Network Speed Upload Time
10 Mbps 3 years
100 Mbps 124 days
500 Mbps 25 days
1 Gbps 12 days

This assumes you are using most of your upload connection to upload your data, which is probably not realistic if you want to stay in business. You could potentially rent a better connection or upgrade your connection permanently, both of which add to the cost of running your business.

Speaking of cost, there is of course a charge for the data transfer service that can be summarized as follows:

  • Backblaze B2 Fireball — Up to 40 TB of data per trip for $550.00 for 30 days in use at your site.
  • Amazon Snowball — up to 50 TB of data per trip for $200.00 for 10 days use at your site, plus $15/day each day in use at your site thereafter.
  • Google Transfer Appliance — up to 100 TB of data per trip for $300.00 for 10 days use at your site, plus $10/day each day in use at your site thereafter.

These prices do not include shipping, which can range from $100 to $900 depending on shipping method, location, etc.

Both Amazon and Google have transfer devices that are larger and cost more. For comparison purposes below we’ll use the three device versions listed above.

The Real Cost of Uploading Your Data

If we stopped our review at the previous paragraph and we were prepared to load up our transfer device in 10 days or less, the clear winner would be Google. But, this leaves out two very important components of any cloud storage project; the cost of storing your data and the cost of downloading your data.

Let’s look at two examples:

Example 1 — Archive 100 TB of data:

  • Use the data transfer service move 100 TB of data to the cloud storage service.
  • Accomplish the transfer within 10 days.
  • Store that 100 TB of data for 1 year.
Service Transfer Cost Cloud Storage Total
Backblaze B2 $1,650 (3 trips) $6,000 $7,650
Google Cloud $300 (1 trip) $24,000 $24,300
Amazon S3 $400 (2 trips) $25,200 $25,600

Results:

  • Using the B2 Fireball to store data in Backblaze B2 saves you $16,650 over a one-year period versus the Google solution.
  • The payback period for using a Backblaze B2 FireBall versus a Google Transfer Appliance is less than 1 month.

Example 2 — Store and use 100 TB of data:

  • Use the data transfer service to move 100 TB of data to the cloud storage service.
  • Accomplish the transfer within 10 days.
  • Store that 100 TB of data for 1 year.
  • Add 5 TB a month (on average) to the total stored.
  • Delete 2 TB a month (on average) from the total stored.
  • Download 10 TB a month (on average) from the total stored.
Service Transfer Cost Cloud Storage Total
Backblaze B2 $1,650 (3 trips) $9,570 $11,220
Google Cloud $300 (1 trip) $39,684 $39,984
Amazon S3 $400 (2 trips) $36,114 $36,514

Results:

  • Using the B2 Fireball to store data in Backblaze B2 saves you $28,764 over a one-year period versus the Google solution.
  • The payback period for using a Backblaze B2 FireBall versus a Google Transfer Appliance is less than 1 month.

Notes:

  • All prices listed are based on list prices from the vendor websites as of the date of this blog post.
  • We are accomplishing the transfer of your data to the device within the 10 day “free” period specified by Amazon and Google.
  • We are comparing cloud storage services that have similar performance. For example, once the data is uploaded, it is readily available for download. The data is also available for access via a Web GUI, CLI, API, and/or various applications integrated with the cloud storage service. Multiple versions of files can be kept as desired. Files can be deleted any time.

To be fair, it requires Backblaze three trips to move 100 TB while it only takes 1 trip for the Google Transfer Appliance. This adds some cost to prepare, monitor, and ship three B2 Fireballs versus one Transfer Appliance. Even with that added cost, the Backblaze B2 solution will still be significantly less expensive over the one year period and beyond.

Have a Data Transfer Device Owner

Before you run out and order a transfer device, make sure the transfer process is someone’s job once the device arrives at your organization. Filling a transfer device should only take a few days, but if it is forgotten, you’ll find you’ve had the device for 2 or 3 weeks. While that’s not much of a problem with a B2 Fireball, it could start to get expensive otherwise.

Just the Beginning

As with most “new” technologies and services, you can expect other companies to jump in and provide various data ingest services. The cost will get cheaper or even free as cloud storage companies race to capture and lock up the data you have kept locally all these years. When you are evaluating cloud storage solutions, it’s best to look past the data ingest loss-leader price, and spend a few minutes to calculate the long-term cost of storing and using your data.

The post Getting Your Data into the Cloud is Just the Beginning appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Transparency in Cloud Storage Costs

Post Syndicated from Roderick Bauer original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/transparency-in-cloud-storage-costs/

cloud storage cost calculator

Backblaze’s mission is to make cloud storage that’s affordable and astonishingly easy to use. Backblaze B2 embodies that mission for those looking for an object storage solution.

Another Backblaze core value is being transparent, from releasing our Storage Pod designs to detailing our cloud storage cost of goods sold. We are an open book in the Cloud Storage industry. So it makes sense that opaque pricing policies that require mind numbing calculations are a no-no for us. Our approach to pricing is to be transparent, straight-forward, and predictable.

For Backblaze B2, this means that no matter how much data you have, the cost for B2 is $0.005/GB per month for data storage and $0.02/GB to download data. There are no costs to upload. We also throw in 10GB of storage and 1GB of downloads for free every month.

Cloud Storage Price Comparison

The storage industry does not share our view of making pricing transparent, or affordable. In an effort to help everyone, we’ve made a Cloud Storage Pricing Calculator, where anyone can enter in their specific use case and get pricing back for B2, S3, Azure, and GCS. We’ve also included the calculator below for those interested in trying it out.

B2 Cost Calculator

Backblaze provides this calculator as an estimate.

Initial Upload:

GB

Data over time

Monthly Upload:

GB

Monthly Delete:

GB

Monthly Download:

GB


Period of Time:

Months

Storage Costs

Storage Cost for Initial Month:
x

Data Added Each Month:
x

Data Deleted Each Month:
x

Net Data:
x

Download Costs

Monthly Download Cost:
x

Total

Total Cost for x Months
x

Amazon S3
Microsoft Azure
Google Cloud

x
x
x
x
x
x
* Figures are not exact and do not include the following: Free first 10 GB of storage, free 1 GB of daily downloads, or $.004/10,000 class B Transactions and $.004/1,000 Class C Transactions.

Sample storage scenarios:

Scenario 1

You have data you wish to archive, and will be adding more each month, but you don’t expect that you will be downloading or deleting any data.

Initial upload: 10,000GB
Monthly upload: 1,000GB

For twelve months, your costs would be:

Backblaze B2 $990.00
Amazon S3 $4,158.00 +420%
Microsoft Azure $4,356.00 +440%
Google Cloud $5,148.00 +520%

 

Scenario 2

You wish to store data, and will be actively changing that data with uploads, downloads, and deletions.

Initial upload: 10,000GB
Monthly upload: 2,000GB
Monthly deletion: 1,000GB
Monthly download: 500GB

Your costs for 12 months would be:

Backblaze B2 $1,100.00
Amazon S3 $3.458/00 +402%
Microsoft Azure $4,656.00 +519%
Google Cloud $5,628.00 +507%

We invite you to compare our cost estimates against the competition. Here are the links to our competitors’ pricing calculators.

B2 Cloud Storage Pricing Summary

Provider
Storage
($/GB/Month)

Download
($/GB)
$0.005 $0.02
$0.021
+420%
$0.05+
+250%
$0.022+
+440%
$0.05+
+250%
$0.026
+520%
$0.08+
+400%

The Details


STORAGE
$0.005/GB/Month
How much data you have stored with Backblaze. This is calculated once a day based on the average storage of the previous 24 hours.
The first 10 GB of storage is free.

DOWNLOAD
$0.02/GB
Charged when you download files and charged when you create a Snapshot. Charged for any portion of a GB. The first 1 GB of data downloaded each day is free.

TRANSACTIONS
Class “A” transactions – Free
Class “B” transactions – $0.004 per 10,000 with 2,500 free per day.
Class “C” transactions – $0.004 per 1,000 with 2,500 free per day.
View Transactions by API Call

DATA BY MAIL
Mail us your data on a B2 Fireball – $550
Backblaze will mail your data to you by FedEx:
• USB Flash Drive – up to 110 GB – $89
• USB Hard Drive – up to 3.5TB of data – $189

PRODUCT SUPPORT
All B2 active account owners can contact Backblaze support at help.backblaze.com where they will also find a free-to- use knowledge base of B2 advice, guides, and more. In addition, a B2 user can pay to upgrade their support plan to include phone service, 24×7 support and more.

EVERYTHING ELSE
Free
Unlike other services, you won’t be nickeled and dimed with upload fees, file deletion charges, minimum files size requirements, and more. Everything you can possibly pay Backblaze is listed above.

 

Visit our B2 Cloud Storage Pricing web page for more details.


Amazon S3
Storage Costs
Initial upload cost:
x
Data added each month:
x

Data del. each month:
x

Net data:
x

Download Costs

Monthly Download Cost:
x

Total

Total Cost for x Months
x

Microsoft
Storage Costs
Initial upload cost:
x
Data added each month:
x

Data del. each month:
x

Net data:
x

Download Costs

Monthly Download Cost:
x

Total

Total Cost for x Months
x

Google
Storage Costs
Initial upload cost:
x
Data added each month:
x

Data del. each month:
x

Net data:
x

Download Costs

Monthly Download Cost:
x

Total

Total Cost for x Months
x

The post Transparency in Cloud Storage Costs appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

LibreOffice 5.4 released with new features for Writer, Calc and Impress

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/729161/rss

The Document Foundation has announced LibreOffice 5.4, the last major
release of the LibreOffice 5.x family. There are some new features in
every module and a number of incremental improvements to Microsoft Office
file compatibility. “Thanks to the efforts of developers, the XML
description of a new document
written by LibreOffice is 50% smaller in the case of ODF (ODT), and around
90% smaller in the case of OOXML (DOCX), in comparison with the same
document generated by the leading proprietary office suite.