Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am little confused with cloufflare's add-on features mentioned on https://www.cloudflare.com/en-in/plans/.
Quote: Take your performance and security even further with Cloudflare’s
paid add-ons for Free, Pro, and Business plans.
So they say I can buy add-ons even with free plan. Now one of the add-ons is a rate-limiting for requests which charges $.05 per 10K good requests. So if I don't buy this add-on, how will they charge per request, good or bad?
They say they protect users from DDoS attacks even on a free plan, so what is a point of buying rate-limiting feature? Is there a limit to requests/bandwidth for free plan users?
Thanks for your help.
A DDoS attack and a rate-limiting are two completely different things, they can be complimentary, but one does not exclude the other.
The DDoS attack is usually (especially for the free plans) only for specific types of attacks, where the traffic is identifiably bad and often simply trying to consume your resources without expecting a response.
Rate-limiting on the other hand can be used for limiting the querying ability by specific users, for whatever reason (be it computation time, login protection, API resource management, etc.). These queries are possibly benign and/or valid, which won't trigger the DDoS protection (immediately at least, it may obviously).
So if I don't buy this add-on, how will they charge per request, good or bad?
They say they protect users from DDoS attacks even on a free plan, so what is a point of buying rate-limiting feature? Is there a limit to requests/bandwidth for free plan users?
They don't charge per request or bandwidth because they don't rate limit (up to extreme cases where they will force the website to bypass Cloudflare's proxy if there is impact on the network as a whole, which are very extreme and for the almost totality of users of the free plan are out of reach) normally. If you want to rate-limit an endpoint then you buy the add-on (with the possibility of paying after the initial 10k good reqs/month per account).
Note that the higher the plan the lower the time intervals you can set, on the free plan is an higher interval than on Pro which is higher than Business.
More info: https://www.cloudflare.com/rate-limiting/
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm comparing the cost of services like google cloud SQL to launching your own VM in the cloud with whatever sql version you'd like.
VM instance only vs Cloud SQL only
I'm quite surprised by the results I got. The cloud SQL, is more than twice the price for the same underlying system (8 vCPU, 52 Go RAM, 2 To storage)
So basically, you pay more to have less. And I was expecting the contrary...
Granted, you don't have to deal with maintenance and automating backup yourself, but I found the price difference ridicule.
So my question is : when should I consider using Cloud SQL instead of running my own specialized VM ?
Right now, I feel like this service is just a fancy way to milk money from the client.
Note : I took the google Cloud example, but this is the same result with other cloud providers.
The tl;dr answer here is that a VM is very different than a fully-managed service. It's like comparing apples and oranges, honestly.
When you create a VM, you have a VM. You can do whatever you want with it, but it's just a VM. That VM may be subject to restarts, must be totally configured by you in many cases, is not redundant, has no (added) security layer, etc.
As a managed service, Cloud SQL (and other managed services) offer many things way beyond what you can do on just a VM. You mention a fraction of them, such as backups. With a managed service you're getting a ton of other things which really matter to most people, such as:
Updates, upgrades
Better performance (in your example the IOPS of PD and Cloud SQL do not match)
Support for the service
Added security
An IAM layer
Integrations with other services
No need to "build it yourself"
etc...
While a (very) small minority of people may want to roll their own, it's generally a waste of time and a heck of a lot riskier than using a managed service. I think if you asked most any business customer, the cost of a managed service pales in comparison to paying a fleet of people to replicate the benefits you get from one.
This is true for GCP, AWS, and Azure.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Would you trust Jelastic if you were to use it for a SaaS application targeted at Enterprise customers?
I'm using it right now for its ease of use in creating a stack for a Java applcation. But it almost feels too easy.
What are you thoughts?
Jelastic is a universal product, designed and developed to satisfy the requirements of both expert and average users.
Ease and versatility are significant advantages of Jelastic. End user doesn't have to be a professional to use our product. But at the same time, Jelastic provides great opportunities for those people who use it.
If I needed a platform for SaaS application targeted at Enterprise, I would definitely choose Jelastic.
I cannot directly answer your question (since Layershift are a Jelastic hosting provider), but I can give you more background information that may help with your decision:
Jelastic is provided via a number of different hosting providers right around the world. That means you can combine the ease of use functionality that you mentioned, and use it together with the hosting provider that suits your needs best in terms of physical location, infrastructure details, support, SLAs etc.
Jelastic is also available in a "private cloud" model which allows you to use it either as a self-hosted on-premise solution, or remotely hosted at any datacentre (for example, any existing Jelastic hosting provider can offer this to you easily).
So there's a wide choice of possible solutions available to help you find the best option for your particular needs.
In contrast, IaaS options offered by AWS, Azure, Google etc. give you a single provider. You might like their platform but not their SLA options/prices etc., or you might like their SLA but not their platform - there is no diversity in their offerings.
My answer is NO.
For enterprise product not only we need to consider product itself we also need to take support quality into consideration.
I have been using Jelastic for almost two years and the biggest issues is support quality, the thing is Jelastic Hosting Partners are not trained with Jelastic knowledge, and the support team from Jelastic Hosting Partners can only act as middle man for Jelastic so the real support comes from Jelastic itself, the turnover time is too long for enterprise.
As time of writing, I already waited for my issue for 6 days, and still no response, come on, this is affecting my production!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
EC2, RDS charge by the number of hours online, but who would actually benefit from this kind of tariff? Why would a webapp need a server online for only a few hours a day/week/etc.?
The hourly tariffs have many use cases. A big one is scientific research: Astrophysics, Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematics etc. Traditionally universities would have to pay huge amounts of money for computing clusters to be purchased and installed on-site even though they spend most of their time idle and a small amount of time actually processing data.
With the advent of cloud computing, researchers can launch a huge server cluster and have it crunch over data for a few hours or days, get the results and then terminate the cluster. See amazon's high performance computing page for more details. You can also read case studies on how NASA's jet propulsion Lab and European space agency make use of flexible tarriff cloud compute clusters on EC2 for processing their data.
Another use case is for auto-scaling. Amazon's Autoscaling feature allows a load balanced EC2 cluster to be scaled up and down with demand. During heavy load additional servers will be launched and added to the cluster, when load drops again they will be removed. Therefore companies can have massive scalability and only pay for the additional capacity if/when the demand on their web site requires it.
One of the main benefits of cloud deployment is scalability.
For example, if you had an application that served the UK retail industry you might find that your peak usage occurs between 7-9am, 12-2pm and 5-8pm, when your audience are awake/not working.
You may have multiple servers employed during these peak times but only one through the night when traffic is low.
Hourly charging allows for this scalability.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone know where I could find a list of safe-for-work (i.e. no porn, piracy sites, etc) domain names that I can use to stress test software that performs asynchronous DNS lookups without raising questions if my network admin happens to be watching?
At least several thousand would be ideal. Most lists I've found have not been filtered at all. So far, using "raw" lists for DNS queries have not raised any questions, but my next step is to create TCP connections.
EDIT: I've cleared everything with local network admin people, however, this would still be nice to have for future developers on the project.
I think you probably worry too much. Having said that how about doing a google search for 'interesting facts about butterflies', parsing all the resulting domains and using those?
Your network admin will probably be more concerned with the fact that you're stress testing a network service on his network on the order of thousands of domains. If you have any kind of decent corporate firewall it's inspecting DNS queries and could choke on a high rate of queries. If your requirement is a legitimate business requirement the best option is to have your boss talk to the head of the network department to CYA.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
This is a call for suggestions and even possible solutions. I haven't been at a company that really seemed to get credential management 'right'.
I've seen excel/word documents and even post-it note 'solutions'.
But my main question is what is the right way to do it?
I have initially thought it would revolve around KeePass a bit, but how would you manage those databases among users?
Also, of all the online password managers I have seen, none are really multi-user.
Hopefully this can bring a bit of perspective and shine a little bit of light on something that I haven't seen any great answers to.
The company I work for sells data center automation tools to assist with exactly this. I'm not going to say who I work for, nor how much it costs (but it's distinctly NOT cheap).
The basic approach we take with that tool (used by hundreds of large companies) is to integrate LDAP/AD authentication against the corporate directory server. Then, as agents are deployed to the managed servers, permissions control can be setup in the product, which then manages access based on your user/group permissions to a given device group / server class / facility / etc.
As for how we, internally, manage credentials - I'll second #irixman's comment - we do it very very poorly :)
To answer your question: very poorly.
We're looking to standardize on public keys for password-less authentication and shared group/passwd files. Our testing looks good so far, but we're still trying to smooth over some rough edges.
This is a very good question. The two companies I've been at don't have a good handle.
I'd like to hear from some people that have had experience doing this in a way that is manageable and works. My sense of this is that it is a widespread issue that people don't talk about but just sort cope with it.
+1 for the question and a star :-)