>This policy of allowing dog is pushed by a majority that cannot understand that some of us simply don't like dogs at all.
Should we also ban roses, because some people don't like them? How about no meat at the workplace because it could bother vegans?
There has to be some kind of compromise by everyone if people want to share a place. Be it accepting that some people love dogs, hate roses,....
At the end, if the majority likes something, you are on the losing end in a shared environment at least (as bad as that sounds). One could also argue it is rather selfish that you want a shared environment to suit your needs only.
If something bothers you that much then you have to somehow find a compromise. Maybe you can sit away from the dog owner coworkers or something or create "dog areas" and "no-dog areas." (Another compromise, like I mentioned).
Did you just compare a dog with roses and vegan food in terms of annoyance?
I think we can all agree that dogs are obnoxious, take space, smell ,make noises, attack etc. Probably a factor a 1000 in annoyance
And for the record, I would not bring roses at work if it annoys one of my colleagues. Seriously those things are not even comparable though.
And for the record, you represent perfectly the dog owner that we all hate, that cannot understand that some of us are anxious around dogs. You think as if your dog must have all the rights and be treated as someone special
I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with dogs, but this is crossing into flamewar and even getting personal. Please don't do that on HN. It's enough to express your view and leave it at that.
Second, I don't let my dog roam around and I am very well aware of people being anxious, but clearly you just hate on anything with dogs and are ranting here.
Really? We havent specified an age here, but would you want a crying baby, "mummy I'm bored", parents disappearing every 5 minutes potty training, and accidents. Toys lying around, your stuff being borrowed, being interrupted at inopportune moments by interested children, being told to moderate language because it isn't suitable.
I wouldn't count any of those as being examples of bad behaviour.
Any idea where the bottleneck was there? CPU use? Protocol latency? I'd be interested to see some test results around that if you know of any that have been published.
A little anecdotal information: some years ago I did a CPU-load test with OpenVPN on a diminutive Atom-based netbook as the client, and it maxed out at around 95mbit/s on a 100mbit/s network (actually a gbit network, but the netbook only had a 100mbit NIC itself) while just doing simple bulk transfers.
>It is easily possible to saturate a 100 Mbps network using an OpenVPN tunnel. The throughput of the tunnel will be very close to the throughput of regular network interface. On gigabit networks and faster this is not so easy to achieve. This page explains how to increase the throughput of a VPN tunnel to near-linespeed for a 1 Gbps network.
I think the protocol just wasn't designed for such high speeds.
It certainly doesn't use multiple cores for a single connection, though I've never tested (or reviewed the code) to see if it does manage to spread the computational load of multiple connections over more CPU resource.
I've not read the above linked article in detail (no time ATM) but there seems to be mention of offloading AES calculations to compatible hardware, so the bottleneck would appear to be CPU use.
Does using multiple cores on a single NIC actually speed up a network connection? If you're doing gigabit with 1500 byte packets, you get 12 ms to encrypt and process each packet -- I'd expect any cross-CPU synchronization to easily blow through that.
If the bottleneck is encryption speed, then you can definitely improve perf by spreading packets across the cores. Inter-core synch isn’t that expensive, and 12us is 24000 cycles on a 2GHz CPU. cmpxchg costs ~20 cycles (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4187914/average-latency-...).
PS. And you don’t need to submit/receive packets to NIC one by one, either; those things support DMA scatter/gather.
Earlier you claim you will only ever hit ~300Mbit, but then you link to an article where the author hit 885Mbit throughput after tweaking a few settings and ensuring OpenSSL was using AES-NI.
Not the person you're asking, but I don't "switch" to paid Gmail because there isn't exactly "paid Gmail". I would pay for the features of G Suite if I could get them to apply to my @gmail.com account - I don't want to set up a new account at a different domain. Said payment would eliminate advertisements from any Google service (exempting YouTube) where I'm logged in with my primary Google account.
i.e. I want paid G Suite to work like Office 365 Personal (which I do pay for), not Office 365 Business.
Also with these "deals" you often also have to ask yourself:
Are you buying it because it is cheap or are you buying it because you need it? Often people buy stuff they don't need because it is on sale "right now."
It's just a rant from the guy because he had some bad experiences with dogs.
THe problem (regardless of office or not) is not that dogs are allowed, but rather dogs not behaving.