shaklee3

43 ms·

751.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I know that, but there IS a motor. Elon has said this himself. what you are describing is far more expensive than a phased array with the scan needed for no motor. It is not a solved, inexpensive problem. 5G and wifi use significantly lower
752.
by shaklee3 6y ago
While that's true for a first approximation, weather, gateway outages (very common as you increase the number of them), total satellite capacity (making sure you aren't overloading a single link), and just non-working paths are co
753.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Yes, this is huge , and likely one of the least appreciated aspects. Scheduling and queueing delay (not in the switches and routers) can contribute significantly to that 100ms.
754.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Starlink is not going to be for end users most likely. The terminal, by all accounts so far, will be far more expensive than a geo terminal due to the motor and the phased array. I guess if you're willing to pay for it, it will certain
755.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I think the processing time might be heavily driven by the waveform and how they do the networking. As complexity increases and they move towards a software defined networking schema, the latency goes up. If they're not using ready-mad
756.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Completely agree. While the video is awesome (nice job!), the logistics of pulling something like this off is extremely difficult. It's different from the "you could have said that about landing a rocket", in that there are t
757.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Think of it this way: traditional geo satellite has a theoretical latency of 430-500ms in most cases. That means there's AT LEAST another 100ms purely due to processing delay and other hops, but typically much more.
758.
by shaklee3 6y ago
SpaceX does not have cross links. They will need to have several hops up and back to different satellites before the signal arrives in many cases. It's not unlikely that when processing time is included, it's well over 100ms.
759.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Agreed, thanks!
760.
by shaklee3 6y ago
It's not quite the same. Hashicorp controls whether PRs get merged. Google does not control whether PRs get merged into kubernetes. There's a long list of companies that do, including IBM, redhat, Huawei, etc. Sure, you can fork i
761.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I understand nomad, and what you're saying is not how anyone runs it. Directly from their documentation: "Nomad schedules workloads of various types across a cluster of generic hosts. Because of this, placement is not known in adv
762.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Nomad uses consul as the kv store, so it doesn't work without their other products.
763.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Not at all. Hashicorp literally pays for all development of nomad. They're the only commits short of a small number of PRs. Kubernetes commits are from a wide array of companies, and Google is only one.
764.
by shaklee3 6y ago
It would be very odd if he said the opposite, since customers could be spooked. But saying it's going to be around is very different from saying it will always have a lot of resources on it going forward, especially compared to their c
765.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The single binary thing is a tired trope. Kubernetes has had hyperkube for many years, which is a single binary for many years. But in really, a single binary should be at the bottom of your list of concerns.
766.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Except Elon just admitted this: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-sa... The satellites were never the challenging part; cross-links and the user terminal were always the most difficult pieces.
767.
by shaklee3 6y ago
No, different frequencies and antennas.
768.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Why should a company that has never offered service, and a dubious residential business case be allowed to bid in a class of existing isps?
769.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The oneweb antenna was never produced or seen: it was a sound byte from the CEO, and they're now bankrupt.
770.
by shaklee3 6y ago
People have worked on phased arrays for decades. It's not going to shrink much, and I don't think it'll be any less expensive.
771.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Mentioned above, but it won't. The hops are up and down to boats instead of routers.
772.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Starlink has no inter-satellite links, so there will still be a large number of hops. The original promise didn't pan out.
773.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That's right, but I think at least since both are listed on their website as different ways to run it that it should at least be considered a native feature at this point.
774.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Someone mentioned this already below, but nats streaming also adds durability.
775.
by shaklee3 6y ago
This isn't true anymore. Nats streaming has persistence, so the OP's question still remains
776.
by shaklee3 6y ago
To be fair, Nvidia has open sourced some key libraries lately. See cutlass and cufftdx.
777.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Excellent article, as usual, Travis.
778.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I feel like this is something common c++ developers know, and it's not worth all the baggage to tag it. You just control the iterator inside the loop instead of in the loop declaration.
779.
by shaklee3 6y ago
We're talking about a few hundred nanoseconds usually. If that matters, then IB is still better.
780.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Those technologies, or mostly IB, were more important when Ethernet speeds lagged behind. IB was first to 100G. Now that Ethernet has caught up, IB has almost no advantage besides a tiny latency decrease. Even mellanox makes more Ethernet t

More ›