100%

Almost like that xkcd joke…

First of all it clearly says counter clockwise so like first of all don’t rotate it clockwise like I did. Then secondly google image search rick roll. Thirdly consider the methods and time people go to to land a joke. Like I wonder if it was assisted by AI to just obfuscate it just enough to not be obvious.

Anyway I had to go to the comments too but mostly because I didn’t read the instructions.

How are they placing this data? Api? Not possible to align disk tiers to api requests per minute? Api response limited to every 1ms for some clients, 0.1ms rate for others?

You’re pretty forthcoming about the problems so I do genuinely hope you get some talking points since this issue affects, app&db design, sales, and maintenance teams minimally. Considering all aspects will give you more chance for the business to realise there’s a problem that affects customer experience.

I think from handling tickets, maybe processes to auto respond to rate limited/throttled customers with 'your instance been rate limited as it has reached the {tier limit} as per your performance tier. This limit is until {rate limit block time expiry}. Support tickets related to performance or limits will be limited to P3 until this rate limit expires."

Work with your sales and contracts team to update the sla to exclude rate limited customers from priority sla.

I guess I’m still on the “maybe there’s more you can do to get your feet out of the fire for customer self inflicted injury” like correctly classifying customer stuff right. It’s bad when one customer can misclassify stuff and harm another customer with an issue by jumping a queue and delaying response to real issues, when it’s working as intended.

If a customer was warned and did it anyway, it can’t be a top priority issue, which is your argument I guess. Customers who need more, but pay for less and then have a expectation for more than they get. It’s really not your fault or problem. But if it’s affecting you I guess I’m wondering how to get it to affect you less.

If it’s possible to do, and it causes a user experience issue, especially one as jarring as “stop accepting writes” you should start adding rate limits and validate inputs with rate limits expressed to the user before they hit the error rate.

To me you should already be sanitising input anyway, and this would just be part of that logic. If a user is trying to upload more than x it warns (with link to documentation of the limit). If user has gone past the rate limits, then error.

I’m not a sre or dev, just a sysadmin though. Users expect guard rails. If it’s possible, it’s permitted.

It’s paraphrasing Torvalds himself though. It’s a cheeky title.

“… and I have absolutely no excuses to delay the v6.6 release any more, so here it is,”

To be honest I think we have different cultural values here. The way I read this and the way you read it is clearly different. I’m disappointed by how little I had my expectations changed, while you had them moved more.

I think the question is, where can you bet on a single coin flip? Maybe because I’m Australian, there’s only one day a year you can bet on a (two) coin flip legally here. Everyone else seems to generally understand that coin flips aren’t fair for gambling and therefore is illegal.

If this paper was like ‘this is how corruption in sports…’ rather than ‘this is like that magician cup and balls trick’ then I’d understand your concern.

But like you said, you don’t even have a coin in the house, so the practical side is day to day, perhaps not even once a year, not only are you not deciding on a coin flip, even if you were, you’d (or whomever was flipping it for you) have to learn a technique to see it affect you.

When the horses have all bolted, BBC is the one to close the barn door.

Personally, it’s the power of powershell that I use for the hundreds of windows servers. Otherwise it’s the power of Linux bash shell scripts for the dozens of Linux servers. None of the Linux servers run a gui so there’s no options there. Tbh for me, self documenting gui is the slowest way to do work. Configuring hundreds at once with peer reviewed scripts and change control is much more effective since the peer review and change control will be needed either way.

Oh though I use fortimanager a lot of configuring dozens of Fortigates. Only have a few scripts on it though.

Many large discoveries by research in Australia in universities and CSIRO didn’t get funding they needed in Australia, and the engineers and researchers simply found funding and moved to the United States. Then the US benefited from all that education and university research investment simply because the economy and startup funding was better.

I guess you know America is on a downturn if they see the same thing happening to them.