text:
Docker vs. Kubernetes vs. Mesos (mesosphere.com)
303 points by martymatheny on Aug 2, 2017 | hide | past | web | favorite | 74 comments
x0rg on Aug 2, 2017
Those kind of articles are not so useful, Mesosphere is the company behind DC/OS and Mesos and they have all the interest in the world to say that Mesos is the best. Things like "... are willing to get your hands dirty integrating your solution with the underlying infrastructure" when talking about Kubernetes is unfair, especially if you compare Kubernetes to Mesos and not to Mesosphere DC/OS for which they provide paid services.
It is true that Mesos works on a different level, but, most of all, the two level scheduling is just a different take at the problem of abstracting physical/virtual resources. In the end, both Mesos/Marathon and Kubernetes aim at the same goal: allow developers to stop thinking about servers.
Kubernetes' great advantages is the community (which is unbelievable) and the extensibility it proposes: Third Party Resource or Custom Resource Definition, pluggable webhooks in the API Server and a number of other things that are simply not there in Marathon or any competitor which allow companies to make Kubernetes work best for their use cases.
ej_campbell on Aug 2, 2017
The Kubernetes folks talk about the differences here and how you could build Mesos apps in K8s: https://github.com/davidopp/kubernetes/blob/87f2590f373306ea...
The limitation of only being able to run Containers I think will be fleeting — as docker and alternatives mature, it really won't make sense to ever use anything else when trying to get the scale that Kubernetes and Mesos is going for by abstracting out the underlying hardware and providing a framework to run sophisticated apps on undifferentiated hardware.
davidopp_ on Aug 2, 2017
What's described in that doc is even easier today thanks to Operators (https://coreos.com/operators), which, to quote the description page, are "application-specific controller[s] that extend[s] the Kubernetes API to create, configure and manage instances of complex stateful applications on behalf of a Kubernetes user."
Disclosure: I work on Kubernetes at Google (and wrote the doc you linked to).
Izmaki on Aug 2, 2017
Some of us love getting our hands dirty. In my honest opinion this whole article seemed very neutral in phrasing. It wasn't until I decided to check the source after having read and enjoyed the entire article, that I discovered that it was written in a Mesos domain. And even then I applaud that they were humble enough to save their own product until the end and didn't seem to exaggerate their sales pitch.
True, it is not too much of a sales pitch, but still something that really can't be seen as impartial, for natural reasons (it comes from the company behind Mesos) and it looses a bit of clarity (Java doesn't equal legacy, you can run Stateful workloads on Kubernetes) towards the end.
From my point of view, the benefits of the two level scheduling are actually quite limited with respect to how the whole story is usually told. Some Mesos framework always use all the resources from the clusters and it might get tricky to really have multiple frameworks to run at the same time on Mesos. Also, sometimes those frameworks don't really offer so many additional features to justify changing the way you are already using Spark, Cassandra and so on.
fen4o on Aug 2, 2017
Exactly. The frameworks that the article describes know how to run say Cassandra or Spark, but you can do the same thing in Kubernetes using TPRs or CRDs with operators:
[0]https://github.com/coreos/prometheus-operator [1]https://github.com/coreos/etcd-operator [2]https://github.com/huawei-cloudfederation/redis-operator [3]https://github.com/CrunchyData/postgres-operator [4]https://github.com/krallistic/kafka-operator [5]https://github.com/pegerto/cassandra-operator
tbcj on Aug 2, 2017
There doesn't appear to be anything at #2 - https://github.com/huawei-cloudfederation/redis-operator.
From what I've seen, Huawei will upload it soon™
ec109685 on Aug 2, 2017
One more difference is Mesos is written in C++, while Kubernetes is written in Go.
Illniyar on Aug 2, 2017
Is that relevant?
ralfn on Aug 2, 2017
Well for something as crucial as this you want to be able to debug and patch the code. I mean: using outside of hobby, prototyping or a startup (i.e the rest of the economy were money wants to buy off risk) this stuff cant be a magic black box. That would be so irresponsible. "Why are our servers down? We are loosing 500k per day." .. "we are getting some weird error we cant debug because we dont know the codebase, or worse, the language. But we searching for random dumb stuff to try on StackOverflow". Yeah somebody is getting fired.
So for the developers responsible for the uptime it could matter a lot if they are more comfortable with one of codebase or language they use.
Off course if you are more like a consumer app type of startup, just put all energy on UX and stuff and hope for the best. But lets hope every bank that uses this sort of stuff has a developer on call that can actually dive into the codebase.
geodel on Aug 2, 2017
Also many parts of Mesos ecosystem are Java. So a JVM is required to run those. It is relevant from deployment perspective.
felipelemos on Aug 4, 2017
Apart from Zookeeper, I can't remember any other Java software on Mesos ecosystem.
gotbeans on Aug 2, 2017
He at least did give information about the topic at hand
Edit: I apologize to the readers, this is not the right place for this kind of talk
justicezyx on Aug 2, 2017
Of cuz, Google open sourced a container runtime before in c++, and no one cared.
raarts on Aug 2, 2017
It feels downplayed in this article, so I would like to state for the record here, I am a happy user of Docker Swarm.
Swarm has been shown to scale to tens of thousands of hosts, but I found it easy to start with, especially with the Gitlab CI support, which natively brings a Docker container registry.
So I commit, CI builds my containers, stores them in my private registry, and automatically deploys from there to the Swarm in various environments. All this was much easier to setup than the alternatives.
Also, I expect an easy transition should I need to move to Mesos or k8s. If I ever need to. In the mean time I like to keep it simple.
sandGorgon on Aug 2, 2017
I'm also a user of Docker Swarm - and I love it! I have extensively played with k8s and feel it has a lot of upfront complexity (especially ingress).
I feel people who are beginning to scale from one machine to 10 will love Docker Swarm (and stick with it). While those who have about 100 machines will start with Mesos/K8s.
gtaylor on Aug 2, 2017
There's no direct migration path from Swarm to Kubernetes, so we chose to start out at a small scale with the latter. It was enough of a leap to fundamentally change how we were building and deploying things. We didn't want to do it twice!
You can dodge much of the operational complexity in standing a cluster up by starting with Google Container Engine or a provisioner like kops. Once you have enough comfort, you can get more fancy and build something more customized to your cases.
actually - i think the other way.
I'm not sure if people who start with Docker Swarm will want to migrate to k8s at all. It works damn well and i have been very happy with it. It has been demonstrated to work at scale.
K8s does have Google behind it though
lucaspiller on Aug 2, 2017
How do you automate the updating of images on Docker Swarm?
coding123 on Aug 2, 2017
I do this:
docker build -t $APPNAME:$timestamp .
OUTPUT="$(docker service inspect -f '{{.Spec.Name}}' sv-$APPNAME || true)"
if [ "$OUTPUT" == "" ]; then
# Service does not exist
echo "Creating service"
docker service create --update-delay 5s \
--publish $PUBPORT:8080 --replicas 2 \
--mount type=bind,source=$(cd ../images; pwd),target=/images,readonly=true \
--mount type=bind,source=$(cd ../processed_images; pwd),target=/app/images \
--mount type=bind,source=$(cd ..; pwd)/config.json,target=/config.json,readonly=true \
--mount type=bind,source=$(cd ~/.aws; pwd),target=/root/.aws,readonly=true \
--name sv-$APPNAME $APPNAME:$timestamp
# Service exists
echo "Updating service"
docker service update --image $APPNAME:$timestamp sv-$APPNAME
I haven't looked in a while, but it would be nice if they had some kind of "upstall" (update/install) kinda like upsert (update/insert) in CRUD land.
snorremd on Aug 2, 2017
I can't talk for the original poster, but I also deploy containers from Gitlab Registry via Gitlab CI pipelines and just use the standard docker swarm commands. So updating the image digest (version) of a service is as simple as running a shell command in a job in a deploy stage in your gitlab ci pipeline:
docker service update --image <some-image:version> --with-registry-auth <some-service>
Simplest example would be a job definition like this: https://pastebin.com/KsG0cDzR
This job would have to be preceded by building the new docker image you are going to update to of course.
acejam on Aug 2, 2017
This is the easiest part, you just call:
docker service update --image $image_name:$new_sha $service_name
and Swarm handles the rest. You can even pass in rolling update options, so the container updates are staggered. Put this into a simple bash script that only runs when the current branch is master. (Because your CI is building every branch to give you fast feedback, right?) In the case of CircleCI or TravisCI, that can be done with something like:
if [ "${CIRCLE_BRANCH}" == "master" ]; then
frenchman99 on Aug 2, 2017
What I've found to work well is to push images to your registry with a different tag for each release. For instance, you have "web:1.0" running in production and want to update? Create a "web:1.1" image, push it to your registry and in Docker Swarm, point your "web" service to the "web:1.1" image instead of "web:1.0".
I define a docker stack .yml file, and have GitLab CI run docker stack deploys.
Dawny33 on Aug 2, 2017
*Marathon on Mesos. :P
pebers on Aug 2, 2017
I guess I should expect some bias given the publisher, but despite a good technical write-up of the difference, their conclusions aren't really backed up by the rest of the article and the wording is obviously slanted towards their own product.
> While there are multiple initiatives to expand the scope of the project to more workloads (like analytics and stateful data services), these initiatives are still in very early phases and it remains to be seen how successful they may be.
StatefulSets have been in Kubernetes since 1.5 (two versions ago) and while some aspects of them still could do with a bit of work, calling it "very early stages" is unfair, as is the suggestion that there's still not any single approach to it.
> If you want to build a reliable platform that runs multiple mission critical workloads including Docker containers, legacy applications (e.g., Java), and distributed data services (e.g., Spark, Kafka, Cassandra, Elastic), and want all of this portable across cloud providers and/or datacenters, then Mesos (or our own Mesos distribution, Mesosphere DC/OS) is the right fit for you.
It's not clear from the article why Mesos is "a reliable platform" but Kubernetes is implied not to be. I'm also not sure why the frequent references to Java as a special case either - you obviously can run Java services on top of Kubernetes as well.
manojlds on Aug 2, 2017
They said legacy applications. You can run a command or script or binary in Mesos / marathon. In Kubernetes, you can run only containers. So at the minimal, your legacy app has to be containerized / dockerized.
majewsky on Aug 2, 2017
> You can run a command or script or binary in Mesos / marathon.
Where does the binary come from, if not from a container?
falsedan on Aug 2, 2017
curl http://bad.domain.com | sudo sh
To be fair, we put our payloads on S3 and tell our universal executor to fetch & unpack them & run a configured command. We successfully wrote an xargs-replacement as a Mesos framework which worked pretty well.
GauntletWizard on Aug 2, 2017
And in kubernetes land, you can run an ubuntu container and do that just as well. Except, you'll lose out on having all the shared resources and state of your host machine. If that sounds scary to you, you should take a minute to think about it the other way - Under the mesos realm, every process can modify the state shared by every other process. If that hasn't convinced you off mesos, than I wish you all the luck you deserve, but not the luck you'll need.
3/10 patronizing and FUD. Mesos is happy to limit resources with cgroups etc. When you say
every process can modify the state shared by every other process
in italics (the scariest type variant), do you mean 'the filesystem'? Mesos has a swathe of isolators to choose from to enforce separation. Mesos is also happy to let tasks run as a specific user, so the good old Unix process model will stop random tasks from stomping each other.
Did you see the other comments drawing attention to the inequality of the Mesos/Kubernetes comparison & suggesting Marathon as the more appropriate peer technology?
bogomipz on Aug 2, 2017
In Marathon you would specify it as a URI. See:
https://mesosphere.github.io/marathon/docs/application-basic...
The Mesos executor can run shell commands or Docker containers.
I recently evaluated all 3 solutions. Here is how I see it after testing the waters:
- want something simple that works today? Docker Swarm
- want something amazingly flexible? Kubernetes
- already use Mesos or DC/OS? Marathon/Mesos
This article from Mesosphere is interesting and gives a good overview, but it downplays advantages of Swarm and Kubernetes and clearly highlights Mesos: Docker has 4 bullet points, Kubernetes has 3 and Mesos has 5.
In addition, Marathon is meant to work on Mesosphere DC/OS and not on other operating systems. For instance, the "Virtual IP" [1] feature only works on DC/OS from what I can tell. This confused me because this feature appears on the UI even if you run Ubuntu, it just doesn't work in that setup.
Docker Swarm seems to have a very comparable feature set, but doesn't care what OS you run.
There is an Mesos plugin for Kubernetes [2] but it looks unmaintained, so this sentence seems a bit off: "Mesos could even run Kubernetes or other container orchestrators, though a public integration is not yet available." This also goes to show how important community support and commercial backing is and Kubernetes is the clear winner here.
At the end, you can read this: "want all of this portable across cloud providers and/or datacenters, then Mesos (or our own Mesos distribution, Mesosphere DC/OS)". With Docker Swarm, you can use multiple cloud providers. Docker Swarm does not care about what servers you use. It encrypts traffic between nodes and needs Docker. That's it. It is cloud agnostic. I'm not sure what the story is with Kubernetes here. Kubernetes is a huge beast: very flexible and powerful, but a high upfront setup cost when you want to manage everything yourself.
[1] https://dcos.io/docs/1.9/networking/load-balancing-vips/
[2] https://github.com/mesosphere/kubernetes-mesos
Kubernetes runs on GCP, AWS, and Azure, and in various on-prem configurations (including on OpenStack).
Disclosure: I work on Kubernetes at Google.
Hello David, thanks for your input here! I was wondering specifically about a hybrid cloud / multi-az setup. Does Kubernetes support that?
sisk on Aug 2, 2017
I'm not David but the answer is yes. After spinning up multiple discrete clusters, you can orchestrate across them by deploying the federation control plane.
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/f...
drdaeman on Aug 2, 2017
Uh. I'm skeptic about Swarm being something that "works today". I really want to use it and spent some time experimenting, but failed to get it working. It could work for a toy webapp project, but I believe is insufficient for anything complicated. There are a lot of things that one would expect to have but that are yet unsolved. Or I'm just unaware that there is a solution (or the solution didn't fit my personal requirements).
1. Networking options are really limited.
Built-in ingress loses of the originating IP address, cannot bind ports only on specific nodes (something that may have partially fixed this was implemented in 17.06 with --network=host option, but I haven't found much documentation), cannot prefer same-node containers (which is important if you have many microservices, as the latency adds up quickly) and more.
For ingress, if one's lucky to have only HTTP traffic (I don't), they can use something like Traefik. But they'll need to run LBs on a manager nodes which isn't really a smart thing to do, as Swarm is said to be sensitive to overloaded managers. Or one can just go for external LBs, like CloudFlare or whatever Amazon/Google/Microsoft offers.
If one needs raw TCP, UDP or other IP traffic - I think they'd better completely ignore built-in service discovery and LBs and go for something external, like etcd+haproxy/nginx, outside of the Swarm (on nodes' host OS). It has to be completely manual setup (okay, I meant Ansible/Puppet/Chef/Salt/etc). While it's possible to run LBs with Docker (non-Swarm containers, if the Swarm network is attachable), etcd is just not designed to auto-deploy on Swarm: its design explicitly disallows one to just `docker service create --name etcd my/custom/etcd && docker service scale etcd=5`, you'll need to set up every node by hand. I believe Consul is better in this regard but haven't tried it yet.
2. I haven't figured out how to have a persistent storage that follows the containers. If a node dies, Swarm would spawn new containers on other nodes, but no chance to have even a slightly dated snapshot. There was something called Flocker that looked like a solution, but it's essentially dead (despite the revival attempts). GlusterFS is an option I know about, but it's really sensitive to latency.
Databases are even more tricky, unless one's bold to use something fancy like CockroachDB (I had enough subtle issues with RethinkDB to be wary about bleeding edge stuff). Maybe I'm just too stupid, but I failed to grok dynamic PostgreSQL multi-master BDR setup, so my DB is still SPOF with some WAL streaming replication manually-activated failovers.
3. Secrets look like a nice addition, but they're best avoided. They're immutable and you have to recreate the container to switch them. If you have any services that have many user-initiated long-living connections (e.g. IRC, XMPP, Websockets or media streaming), this would makes secrets basically unusable for anything that could be rotated, like TLS certificates. Unless you can drop all your users every now and then.
4. Logging was quite messy, but they've sorted it out with 17.06.
(As for the K8S - it solves most of the issues, but I got my share of issues with Rancher, so I'm really wary about having any complexity in the core. There's already a beast called Linux kernel down there, and $deity have mercy on those who have to debug its oopses. If a behemoth - I mean, K8s - decides to misbehave, I expect to have a really bad time trying to keep things afloat. Even Swarm mode is fairly complex black box binary - but at least I can try debugging it.)
Bgd1 on Aug 3, 2017
Regarding persistent storage following containers, check out REX-Ray: https://rexray.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ as it works with various storage options.
cpuguy83 on Aug 4, 2017
1. You can use host-mode port binding (equivalent of `docker run -p` as opposed to the routing mesh), you could also use macvlan/ipvlan to do this.
2. Indeed this is tricky right now. One way to sort-of fake it is you can do something like `--mount type=volume,source='important_data{{.Task.Slot}}'`... I'm not sure I would call this a recommendation, but worth playing with. But also I'm not sure if automatic failover of databases is truly a thing, it's just not that easy (outside of the storage aspect).
cryptica on Aug 2, 2017
I do think it's a fight to the death for container orchestrators. The configuration files required to run complex auto-scaling systems can add up (and require DEEP understanding of all the systems involved and how they interact with each other) - Most developers don't want to have to do it for more than one orchestrator; especially since there is no straightforward migration path from one orchestrator to another.
Also, learning different orchestrators is a lot of work. Sure, maybe Mesos does more than just schedule containers, but that doesn't matter because a standardized orchestration platform is the main thing developers need right now - For orchestration to become truly standardized, there needs to be a single big majority winner.
It reminds me of the Minix vs Linux debate in the early days of operating systems; Minix was modular (microkernel) while Linux was monolithic. The reason why Linux won is because it provided a single consistent standard platform on which to build and configure applications. I think the same is going to happen here and I think that Kubernetes or Swarm are better placed in that regard.
k2xl on Aug 2, 2017
I'm not sure if I agree. There are many frameworks in the devops space with each having their own DSLs that had various learning curves. For example, I see companies split between Puppet, Chef, Salt, Ansible, etc...
It sucks, don't get me wrong, that there one hasn't come away from the pack, but I don't think it's likely that any of these orchestration frameworks will go away. Each of them have a pretty dedicated following with lots of developers behind it.
tyingq on Aug 2, 2017
>The reason why Linux won is because it provided a single consistent standard platform
I suspect there were many reasons. One reason it might have won vs minix was broader driver support for various video, network, sound cards, etc.
> The configuration files required to run complex auto-scaling systems can add up
Is there a tool for managing orchestration config?
I am very interested in learning the current status.
elmiko on Aug 2, 2017
just watched a demo about http://codesolvent.com/ on monday, seems like they are providing a solution for configuration management that is oriented towards cloud orchestration.
i'm sure there are others, but this was fresh in my mind
cannonpr on Aug 2, 2017
I am a relatively unhappy user of mesos marathon and chronos migrating to k8. While it would take a long time to mention all the reasons and I might do a writeup, one of the main things that pushed us to k8 was the code quality / bugs in the mesos stack. Minor examples are the bugs breaking HA + SSL in combination (mesos + marathon, fixed now) the odd bugs in chronos, where a major 3.0 release would forever append CMD to CMD modifying its own supposedly immutable config into a never ending string, the list is relatively long but we are spending too much time catching edge case bugs, which seem to be a side effect of a fairly loosely coupled stack that doesn't get tested enough.
Overall so far we are much happier with k8 in terms of both quality, and it's batteries included stance in most issues.
chairmanwow on Aug 2, 2017
As someone rather unfamiliar with the differences in cloud containerization options, I've been extremely confused anytime I see extremely opinionated arguments about cloud infra. This article was a breath of fresh air and is exactly the reference guide that I have been looking for. The author provides a clear history of the development of the titular systems, provides an in-depth overview of their various strengths, and adequately describes the differences in architecture. Overall, an excellent read for the uninitiated.
I have previously tried to investigate why Kubernetes was considered useful [1], or why everyone was losing their minds over Docker [2]. But rarely came away with any clear insights.
[1] https://www.kubernetes.io/case-studies/box/ [2] http://www.quotecolo.com/the-case-for-docker-against-cloud-v...
Be aware, though, that this article is clearly partisan.
caspereeko on Aug 2, 2017
I would like to share my personal experience running Meoss.
I have been using Pure Mesos setup, without DC/OS for 2.5 years.
We have the following infra features.:
- 120 micro-services running using marathon.
- 10 batch jobs running using Chronos.
- So far, everything is reliable and no downtime.
- We have Ip-Per-Task enabled with Project Calico.
- We have Public, Private, and IP Access-list enabled per container using Nginx and ELBs.
- The max number of containers we ran on the cluster so far is 3620 containers.
- We have detailed graphs monitoring per-container generated automatically.
- We have (slack #alerts) alerting enabled.
- We have secrets store using vault.
In the end we had to use (Mesos, Marathon, Chronos, Vault, Consul, Nginx, Calico, ELK, TICK.) on AWS.
The thing is, We had to configure these things to work together nicely so it is not out-of-the-box solution. Even though we haven't used Kubernetes yet, we are not religious to Mesos.
But at the moment, it seems we have everything we need and the team is happy with the current setup.
May I ask, any further details on the use cases or plain use of the networking landscape on your setup?
I use that for 2 scenarios:
- to deploy on demand staging or QA environment including its dependencies.
- allow service/infra devs to try services quickly without the need to use Terraform or to buy expensive instances in the first stage of the development.
random3 on Aug 2, 2017
Why should there be an assumption of (full) objectivity on an article written by one provider of the 3 technologies that are being compared? Whit that said the article is fairly balanced in presenting some layers of the whole context (mostly the historical one).
Although I would mention Google tried to have their own Docker but that didn't pan out (https://github.com/google/lmctfy) so they switched to Docker and had Kubernetes open-sourced. More historical details would have just made for a longer (albeit more interesting) article I guess.
Now to actual context. While they mention Swarm is not in CNCF and under tight control of Docker Inc. they don't mention that while Mesos is in ASF, Mesosphere hired the majority of the PMC (committers with voting rights). and the rest of the DC/OS is not even in ASF so doesn't even have to abide to the rules of the ASF. At the same time, Mesosphere heavily used the Mesos brand by mixing Mesos-phere and DC/OS into everything Mesos.
So the reason people talk about Mesos, Marathon, DC/OS and Mesosphere as almost synonyms is because they made it so. Marathon used to be a Mesos framework and service scheduler, now it's a DC/OS one for the most part (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656193)
However, in the process, they managed to alienate a part of the community too, all this while Kubernetes was able to do probably one of the best community jobs in OSS and skyrocketed (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=mesos,kubernetes). That must be a bitter irony if you consider that initially Kubernetes was supposed to be just a Mesos framework...
So yes, Mesos is lower level and with the two phase scheduling it should be more versatile, etc. but that value is highly diminished if you consider the focus is around DC/OS.
I think there are several angles that make this whole context interesting. Perhaps it would be worth a full writing...
> initially Kubernetes was supposed to be just a Mesos framework...
This is not correct. There is a community-owned project that allows Kubernetes to run on Mesos, but it came after standalone Kubernetes.
Then perhaps you could ask John Wilkes ;)
later edit: I'm referring to the fact that when Kubernetes came out it didn't have resource allocation and the answer to "how it compares to Mesos" was that it would run on top of Mesos as a framework.
John Wilkes gave a talk about Kubernetes at MesosCon in 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQAAkO5B5Hg and also answered the above question quite a bit while there...
Kubernetes was not designed with the intention that it would be a Mesos framework. But I think it's very cool that people figured out how to make it work as one!
From pre-1.0, Kubernetes did resource allocation for CPU and memory via its cluster-level scheduler, enforced on the node using the standard container isolation mechanisms provided by Docker.
tbrock on Aug 2, 2017
This article hilariously makes it seem as though Google hadn't thought about using Linux cgroups and namespaces to manage processes before dotcloud conceived of Docker.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Google has been doing "containers" since before dotcloud was even a company.
timhwang21 on Aug 2, 2017
This is addressed:
>Google had tremendous experience with containers (they introduced cgroups in Linux) but existing internal container and distributed computing tools like Borg were directly coupled to their infrastructure.
Ah I missed that, touché
fapjacks on Aug 2, 2017
One more company with a "pricing" page that has no pricing information on it.
ty_a on Aug 2, 2017
IIRC $5k per node, per year.
Oh. Well. That would explain it. Thanks.
kozikow on Aug 3, 2017
Kubernetes running on DCOS is mentioned, but not treated as a real alternative. Kubernetes can run as an app on top of Mesos the same way marathon can. Note: I am a heavy user of Kubernetes, but not Mesos, so I can't comment how well it works.
Kubernetes uses "two phase scheduling" and Mesos can be plugged as a second phase (e.g. https://github.com/kubernetes-incubator/kube-mesos-framework... seems decent). For me it seems like a perfect combination - on the cloud you utilize cool stuff like GKE or https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-azure-cont... for phase 2 of schedule, but if your client wants to run your code to run on their servers you can run it on their mesos/dcos deployment.
user5994461 on Aug 2, 2017
Too bad reviewers always forget Nomad from Hashicorp. https://www.nomadproject.io/
The only cluster management system that doesn't take 3 years to understand and doesn't depend on 42 other complicated software.
kyrias on Aug 2, 2017
Nomad is mentioned in the article, so they hardly forgot about it.
itaysk on Aug 2, 2017
It is true that mesos is often considered better suited to data/job oriented workloads as opposed to long running microservices applications, and I wonder why.
The argument is usually around mesos' two level scheduling paradigm with which i'm familiar, but still don't see it's practical advantages over simple master scheduler.
Does someone have any insight on this topic? (assume docker containers will be used anyway and that a single application/framework will work on the cluster)
The article is theoretically correct, but practically if you use mesos you will use marathon/aurora and you'll compare that to Kubernetes. I find Kubernetes' "cloud native" approach much more compelling for green-field projects.
BTW - the more I dove into Marathon the more I discovered how thin wrapper it is above mesos, that does most of the work including - container runtime, pulling resources, starting tasks, handling registries, and now even health checks!
filereaper on Aug 2, 2017
Has anyone run k8s recently on DCOS (1.9)?
We're running on Azure and have spent quite a bit of time and engineering on k8s. We're trying out DCOS for frameworks like Spark. We'd prefer not to run two container infrastructures if possible.
I looked at kubernetes-mesos, its installation wasn't as simple as "dcos package kubernetes" so I'm wondering if I'm going down a path of high resistance.
lowbloodsugar on Aug 2, 2017
I'm using Mesos in production. TL;DR - if you have less than 1000 machines, don't even think about Mesos. They don't care about you (you don't give them enough money, which they are really short of), and their system uses strategies that are effective only when you have a large number of machines.
jimktrains2 on Aug 2, 2017
I'm kind of saddened that BSD jails never got this kind of attention. I wonder why? Is it tooling? There was ezjail and BSDploy. iocage seems to be doing some interesting stuff, especially with respect to configuration.
mathattack on Aug 2, 2017
I kind of wish someone had written this article from an independent viewpoint.
ackerman80 on Aug 3, 2017
https://netsil.com/blog/kubernetes-vs-docker-vs-mesosphere/
LoSboccacc on Aug 2, 2017
weird they say Kubernets are more comparable to Docker in Swarm Mode than Docker standalone, but then list the features of Docker standalone
not that I'd endorse swarm mode eh, it's very very early stages and lacks a truckload of features before it could be used in anything but the simplest node replication scenarios.
johnsmith21006 on Aug 2, 2017
K8 already won the orchestration battle.
mdekkers on Aug 10, 2017
There is a battle? There is only room for a "single" orchestration platform? What about users with needs that differ from the mainstream?
I find that such a limiting worldview on deploying infrastructure. If I wanted "one size fits all" I would stay within the Microsoft environment.


We are in the Kyoto city of Japan. 5 minutes on foot from Tanbaguchi Sta. of JR Sagano-line. Room 609 of KRP9. Telephone number is +81-75-321-7300.
Go out straight of ticket wicket of Tambaguchi Sta. of JR. Then you see main street (Gojo St.). Turn left and go to the direction of the left hand (west) according to the street.
Walking for a while, you see "Kagonoya" over pedestrian crosswalk.
Crosssing at the crosswalk, and passing by "Kagonoya" and "Starbucks Coffee", you see KRP9 (KRP Bldg. #9) on the left hand.
Turn left to a pathway short front of KRP9. Go straight a bit, you will see the entrance of KRP9.
Entering in the entry hall, there is an elevator on the left hand. Please go up to 6F with the elevator. Get off the elevator and you see a gate to the front.
Gate is locked. Call us over the intercom on the right of the gate with our room number 609.


Pasquale Rotella answered questions about EDC Las Vegas 2019, Middlelands, Sacred Valley, and more in an AMA on the r/electricdaisycarnival subreddit!
In what we hope continues to be a yearly tradition, Insomniac Events Founder and CEO Pasquale Rotella has returned to the Electric Daisy Carnival Subreddit for another AMA to discuss the upcoming edition of EDC Las Vegas, updates on other Insomniac Events, and more.
Answering questions for over two hours, the he discussed everything from changes and updates for EDC Las Vegas to insight into some of the decisions that are made as well. Pasquale also answered a handful of questions surrounding other events that many wanted to know updates on including Middlelands, Sacred Valley, and other pressing topics like harm reduction and security.
Check out the full AMA over on Reddit, or read on below for the most crucial questions and answers that we've sifted through to ease your reading experience. We'll continue to update this post if more questions get answered about the upcoming edition of EDC Las Vegas!
Don't forget to join the r/electricdaisycarnival family on Facebook and Reddit!
A: Last year's wait times were unacceptable. Fixing that and other processes is one of our main focuses for Camp EDC. We've had many planning meetings just about this. We will have a revised entrance plan that includes more lanes with more people working, check-in staff will be more experienced, and we'll have better processes all around without sacrificing the safety of you, the Headliner. We're also extending check-in hours to spread out the traffic ingress.
A: They will be evenly spread out along the strip and downtown. Most will be the same as last year, with the exception of Tropicana, but we are working on a replacement for the south strip as well as adding more locations.
A: There is not any one change that gets me excited, improving all aspects of the event is the most exciting goal. I'm always looking to improve and make things better. Camp EDC is a focus, new stages, new lineup, new art, creative aspects we've been working on that finally come to fruition, better processes, better logistics, and just an overall better experience. It's all equally important to me.
A: We wanted to introduce a midway point between GA and VIP. GA+ elevates your festival experience with expedited, dedicated GA+ entry and special access to premium, air-conditioned restrooms. We're always pushing to enhance the VIP experience every year and VIP amenities can be found at edclasvegas.com/VIP.
A: I'm very excited about this year's theme. Big announcement coming soon! I was just looking at the new kinetic stage design and WOW I can't wait for you guys to see it.
A: Yes, there are many surprises! Right now, just because I was working on it earlier this morning, I have to say the kineticFIELD stage might be the most epic stage we'll have in the history of EDC.
A: No plan for right now. If we did bring it back it would not be for circuitGROUNDS, as that area is too large. But it could work for another stage and has been considered.
A: It's always possible. We've done that before and it's better when its a collaboration so it's not a bunch of flashing logos and instead it is art that ties into the stage and theme.
A: First of all, I love you for bringing your Mom to the festival! I want to see more generations enjoying this beautiful culture and community. I welcome all ideas on how we can encourage and support all the seasoned ravers who want to continue attending our events. If you have ideas hit us up at access@insomniac.com.
A: We are planning to do multiple channels which will allow multiple stages and full sets to be streamed.
A: I agree with you about the cleanliness of Carnival Square. We're demanding that the clean-up company we used last year perform better. If you're looking to chill, the art areas on either side of cosmicMEADOW are awesome. And one of the best views in the house is on the grandstands where there are lots of seats.
A: We will do this again, no plans right now. At EDC, we still have an art car that hosts these artists for a night.
A: The kineticFIELD Cathedral but that might change after next year's EDC.
A: I loved that daisy, the artists did an amazing job! I have imagined bringing it back many times. Thank you for the motivation to work on it. No guarantees though as it was a collaboration between Insomniac and the artist troop that we commissioned the piece with. I will definitely reach out to them and work on it!
A: We're planning something super unique that we've never done before, and I'm very excited to announce it before the end of the year. It includes what you're describing and much, much more.
Q: Would one be able to refund their EDC ticket or pay the remaining balance between their EDC ticket and said potential 'Passport'?
A: The program is still being developed so I don't want to dive too deep into details, but anything we do will not apply to EDC Las Vegas 2019.
A: There is a flow to what we do but we definitely plan in advance. We started planning EDC Vegas 2019 before 2018 even happened.
A: There are about 100 Insomniacs here in the office working on the festival year-round, but we actually subcontract out thousands of staff during the festival. I personally work on all of the stages with the creative department here at Insomniac HQ and we also collaborate with outside artists, which changes from year to year depending on the stage and event.
A: Over the course of three nights, around 15,000 fireworks are shot off.
A: I think one of the things people are missing out on is Camp EDC. Aside from the entrance experience that is going to be fixed, the energy and vibe there was so unique and I was really excited about it. At EDC itself, I would say checking out the nooks and crannies like the saloon and the live band in there. Of course, seeing an amazing DJ at the big stages is cool but I really think looking out for artists you've never heard of or up-and-coming DJs is something everyone should do.
A: We take this issue very, very seriously, and we ask that anyone who experiences something like this immediately take note of the guard's jacket number and reach out to a supervisor or an Insomniac staff member to make us aware. You can also reach out to me on my personal socials and our Insomniac socials. We're always listening.
A: I want Middlelands back but we can't bring it back unless we have the right venue. I'm never gonna give up, I'm not giving up on that. We're going to find a venue we just haven't found it yet.
A: Thanks for sharing your experience. I also love those guys. They're the first group of people that supported Insomniac and have been loyal supporters since 1993. It very much does have that old-school vibe. We don't promote it because it's renegade and underground. Stumbling on it is part of the fun, and there's no guarantee that anything will be going on at any given time.
A: We weren't going to be able to produce an event that measured up to our standards when it comes to experience and safety. If anyone has a unique situation where they've been affected beyond just having to get a ticket refund, I'd like to know more about it personally. Please have them email info@insomniac.com and in the subject line write Sacred Valley/Reddit AMA. Myself or another Insomniac will get back to them. I can't guarantee that we can satisfy everyone, but we will do our best.
A: I've actually had DanceSafe at our events a while back, but when the venue, the local authorities, and the insurers are opposed to it, you won't have that city or location as an option. It's already hard enough to find venues where I can organize events. Unfortunately, some people view partnering with DanceSafe or other harm reduction groups as endorsing drug use rather than keeping people safe, and that can prevent producers from getting locations and organizing events.
A: I appreciate you having interest in working at Insomniac. When there are job openings, they become available on Insomniac.com. In addition, there are also opportunities with on-site teams including Ground Control, Customer Experience, and our Merchandise department. Keep an eye out for more information!
A: Still working on it. It's one of many goals and it's going to be a while. I envision the museum being at a permanent festival site and that's not easy to come by, we're always looking for a potential place.
Did Pasquale answer your question? Let us know in the comments!


text:
Mock executions and thousands of protesters greet Iran\'s President Rouhani in Paris
By Harriet Sinclair
January 28, 2016 17:40 GMT
Thousands protest Iranian president Hassan Rouhani\'s visit to France	IBTimes UK
Thousands of people took to the streets of Paris and even staged mock executions to protest about the visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
The demonstration, which took place at Place Denfert-Rochereau on 28 January, was described by one attendee as vibrant, as Iranians and human rights activists waved flags and banners, chanting anti-Rouhani slogans and demanding an end to executions in the Islamic republic.
Thousands gathered to protest about Rouhani\'s visit NCRI
Among the spectacles at the massive demonstration was a platform of people who acted out hangings to symbolise the thousands of executions that have taken place while Rouhani has been in power.
Maryam Rajavi, president elect of the Iran resistance said: "Rolling out the red carpet for Rouhani by European governments is to welcome the godfather of terrorism and fundamentalism, to legitimise the regime and its most repressive factions.
"It is also to the detriment of human rights in Iran. Welcoming Rouhani will only embolden this regime in the torture and execution of the Iranian people, further warmongering in the region, especially in Syria, and export of Islamic extremism and terrorism."
Mock executions took place as activists demanded an end to capital punishment NCRI
Rajavi was joined at the gathering by Gilbert Mitterrand, president of France Libertés Foundation and son of the late president Francois Mitterrand; Algerian former prime minister Sid Ahmed Ghozali; José Bové, member of the European Parliament from France; Rama Yade, former French secretary of state for human rights; and French lawyer and jurist Henri Leclerc, among others.
Michel Kilo, a member of Syrian opposition, and Marzieh Babakhani, a member of PMOI/MEK Central Council, were among the speakers at the rally, while Gérard Lauton read out parts of a letter from leading French unions to the French president and foreign minister in protest to Rouhani's trip.
Rouhani's visit to France and Italy, his first to Europe in 16 years, has already made headlines, not least because the Iranian president has secured an estimated $18bn (£13bn) of deals with Italy, with aviation agreements expected with French companies too.
People waved flags as they marched in Paris NCRI
His visit comes weeks after crippling economic sanctions on Iran were lifted, paving the way for the country to increase oil exports and further trade with the US and EU.
Shahin Gobadi of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) said: "Thousands of Iranians came out today to soundly expose Rouhani's façade. Their message was that Rouhani is only a functionary of the religious fascism that is loathed by the Iranian people.
Demonstrators in the French capital protest the visit of Rouhani NCRI
"His record includes more than 2,000 executions, full-fledged support for Bashar Assad's massacre of the Syrian people and support for international terrorism. This clearly shows his true colours."
Watch footage of the demonstration here
More about Rouhani
France: Topless Femen activist \'hangs\' herself to protest against Iran\'s Hassan Rouhani visit to Paris
Iran to strike agreement with carmaker Peugeot as President Rouhani helps broker trade deals
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani praises\' very hospitable\' Italy after naked statues covered up
Mass-demonstration planned for Iranian presidential visit to Paris amid human-rights allegations
Related topics : Iran Paris

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


So how do you get rid of these cabbage worms in a way that is safe and effective? If you are growing food, you most likely do not want to be using chemicals, since you want to keep it as clean, healthy, and organic as possible. Well, there are several natural remedies and methods you can use safely. Plant garlic, allium, thyme, tomatoes, onions, sage, borage, nasturtium, tansy, and rosemary... 11/04/2017 · There are natural ways to rid your garden of caterpillars and slugs if you are willing to diligently pursue these pests. Hand-picking, trapping and targeted biological pesticides are all safe methods for organic gardeners.
So how do you get rid of these cabbage worms in a way that is safe and effective? If you are growing food, you most likely do not want to be using chemicals, since you want to keep it as clean, healthy, and organic as possible. Well, there are several natural remedies and methods you can use safely. Plant garlic, allium, thyme, tomatoes, onions, sage, borage, nasturtium, tansy, and rosemary... 27/12/2018 · Try using Bacillus thuringiensis var kurstaki (BTk). BTk is a bacteria that naturally occurs on dead or decaying material in the soil. This bacteria is good for controlling caterpillars because it interacts badly with the digestive system of caterpillars.
10/04/2017 · You can get rid of caterpillars without chemicals by practicing organic pest control. Step 1. Handpick caterpillars from plants as you find them. You may need to patrol your garden at night to find slugs and some caterpillars. Relocate the caterpillars to a different area, or kill them by dropping them into a bucket of soapy water. Step 2. Spray the foliage of plants with neem oil. Neem oil... Organic pest control. How to get rid of caterpillars, cabbage loopers, cutworms and cabbage moths organically. Follow us on Face Book!


UNIONTOWN, Pa. — Dagostino Electronic Services customer Maitri Medicinals' first medical marijuana dispensary is now open in Uniontown.
The 7,500-square-foot dispensary, located on West Main Street, is the first in Fayette County.
DES designed and installed the dispensary's security system in accordance with strict guidelines set forth by the state of Pennsylvania.
Maitri also partnered with DES for a new Fortinet FortiVoice phone system, Fortinet firewall, data switches and wireless system, an audio system and multimedia technologies throughout the space.
The state-of-the-art security system includes strategically placed exterior and interior Axis cameras, access control on nearly every door, electronic visitor management and intrusion detection, all of which is monitored and managed with Genetec's easy-to-use unified security platform Security Center.
During business hours, a security guard will be stationed at the dispensary's front door and only patients with state-issued medical ID cards will be allowed into the waiting room.
Beyond the waiting room, behind a set of locked double doors, is the sales area where patients will discuss treatment options with trained pharmacists and other personnel.
The medical marijuana is stored in another secured room behind the sales room.
Maitri Medicinals was founded by Corinne Ogrodnik and Joseph Vesely in 2016 and was granted approval by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in June 2017 to open up to three medical marijuana dispensaries.
Maitri's second dispensary will be in located in Pittsburgh. DES will install various technologies in the space, including the security system, and work on the project has already begun.
Maitri is also planning to open a medical marijuana grow facility in the Pittsburgh area in the coming months.
Medical marijuana is available to Pennsylvanians diagnosed with one of 21 qualifying medical conditions listed on the health department's website, medicalmarijuana.pa.gov.
Patients must apply for a state-issued medical marijuana ID card.
Learn more about the program at medicalmarijuana.pa.gov.


In place of the tube in a normal tyre, the tyre and the rim of the wheel form an air container in a tubeless tyre. To 'seal in the air', in this tyre-rim compartment, the inner wall of the tyre is throughly lined with an impermeable, air-tight membrane. The inner liner of the tubeless tyre is constructed of halo-butyl/chlorobutyl and other materials. This performs, in essence, the important chore of substantially reducing the permeation of air, as compared to the natural rubber inner liner, a function of which is why we use a butyl tube in a tubed tyre.
The main difference between the tube type tyre and the tubeless tire is that the tubeless tire is itself the tube.


STILLWATER, Okla. (Oct. 8, 2014) — We keep hearing that, in order to meet the needs of the 9 billion souls expected to inhabit this planet by 2050, beef production efficiency must improve. According to South Dakota State University animal scientist George Perry, beef currently represents 22% of the world's meat production. In order to continue providing their current share of the supply, beef producers must double production in the next 35 years. It seems like a daunting task. To meet it, increasing numbers of cow-calf producers are considering use of estrus synchronization and artificial insemination (AI) to hasten genetic improvement of their herds.
"Data shows that heifers with reproductive tract scores of 4 and 5 achieve higher conception rates and are likely to stay in the herd longer," explained George Perry.
Speaking during the Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle (ARSBC) symposium Oct. 8-9 in Stillwater, Okla., Perry called synchronized AI a powerful tool for genetic improvement. He warned, however, that producers must consider whether they are really ready to implement a synchronization protocol, by reviewing their herds' reproductive performance for the past few years.
Discussing criteria for evaluating the suitability of heifers, Perry said replacement candidates should not have received growth-promoting implants. Producers must consider how they can have heifers developed to an appropriate breeding weight. Additionally, a minimum of 50% of heifers should have reached puberty and begun normal estrous cycles. Perry said sexual maturity can be determined through reproductive tract scoring performed four to six weeks prior to breeding.
"Data shows that heifers with reproductive tract scores of 4 and 5 achieve higher conception rates and are likely to stay in the herd longer," explained Perry.
Body condition is an important consideration when evaluating the suitability of mature cows for estrus synchronization. Perry said body condition score (BCS) at the time of calving should be 5 or greater, since cows calving in poor condition typically experience a longer postpartum period of anestrus before they start cycling again. Cows that experience calving difficulty may also exhibit a longer postpartum interval.
Perry said timing of vaccinations may also affect the success of synchronization and AI. He recommended that heifers be vaccinated early and no boosters be given within 30 days prior to breeding time, especially when using a modified-live virus (MLV) vaccine. Similarly, cows should not be vaccinated within 30 days prior to breeding.
Noting that multiple synchronization protocols have been developed and used successfully, Perry said the key is compliance with the protocol. Use all products correctly by delivering correct dosages at the prescribed time. Similarly, insemination must be administered correctly and at the correct time.
Perry emphasized the importance of maintaining proper nutrition following breeding. A sudden change of diet can cause stress leading to embryonic loss. For example, heifers that had been drylotted and fed a ration up until breeding time, and have little or no grazing experience, should not be turned out to grass immediately after breeding.
Trucking recently-inseminated females to another location also can induce stress that may cause embryo mortality. Perry said the greatest risk to embryo survival exists from Day 5 to Day 42 following insemination. He recommended shipping cows immediately after insemination, or waiting until after Day 45. However, some risk remains until after 60 days.
According to Perry, genetic improvement through artificial insemination has become more practical through advancements in synchronization protocols, but success hinges on good management.
Perry spoke during Wednesday's ARSBC session focused on reproductive management. For more information, visit the Newsroom at www.appliedreprostrategies.com to view his PowerPoint, read the proceedings or listen to the presentation.


Fran Tarkenton and Tiger Woods on TV show "That's Incredible". EA Sports: The Making of Tiger Woods PGA Tour '13: Legacy Challenge Mode. Tiger Woods - 5 iron FO - Slow motion. Tiger Woods' Highlights | Round 3 | THE PLAYERS. Jordan Spieth | top 24 moments | 24th birthday. Tiger Woods' complete playoff of 2008 US open. Teenage Roger Federer on Trans World Sport. Tiger Woods 94-96 US Amateur Golf Swing Video Show. Bill Walton - Sports Century. Tiger Woods' spectacular recovery shot on No. 12 at Quicken Loans. Learn How To Grip It Like Tiger Woods!!!! 2012 US Open.


In this guide, we are going to explain the different technologies used by many brands to produce skate decks.
This is the standard construction and the most used by all the factories. It consist in 7 sheets of Canadian maple glued together to form the thickness of the deck.
After many years the conclusion is that seven is the exact number, because more sheets mean more durability, but also means a heavier and less flexible deck, and less sheets result too fragile decks.
The use of the Canadian maple has become a standard, because it is a very strong and durable wood, abundant and with a low production cost.
Brands that use this technology: All the brands have decks fabricated this way.
After years of investigation, P2 technology has become one of the most efficient to build decks.
It consists on replacing one of the seven Canadian maple sheets for a oval Kevlar fiber sheet, with support the other six.
This sheet helps distributing better the pressures all along the board, increasing durability and resistance.
Decks built with this technology are thinner, lighter and the fiber sheet has a 'spring effect' that gives a bigger pop.
Brands that use this technology: Mystery, Toy Machine, Habitat, Plan B, Creature, Skate Mental, Santa Cruz, Flip, Zero.
The Impact technology combines maple sheets and carbon fiber discs.
It is divided in three levels.
Impact Support: The table is constructed with eight maple sheets and two carbon fiber discs in the truck area, which is the part of the board that suffers greater stress.
This makes the boards more robust and gives them a longer life.
Impact Plus: In this level, the fabrication is the same than Impact Support's, but adding an extra layer of carbon fiber on the top, with an oval cut.
This gives the boards more strength and durability while greater pop.
Impact Double: At this level, only seven maple sheets and two carbon fiber discs are used, in the trucks zone, but it has an entire extra sheet of carbon fiber. This technology is one of the most durable and strongest on the market, with one of the major pops simultaneously.
Resin technology also has 7-ply mapple but, instead of using ordinary glue, exposy resin is used, to be much stronger. Is needed less quantity of resin than of glue.
There are two categories; Resin 7 and Resin 8.
Resin 7: Seven Canadian maple sheets, glued with exposy resing. They are lighter that the standard ones.
Resin 8: Instead of seven sheets of Canadian maple these decks have eight. As the exposy is lighter, even with an extra sheet these boards have the same weight that the standard 7-ply decks. So with the same weight you can have a more resistant deck because of the extra sheet.
Brands that use this technology: Almost, Enjoi, Cliché.
This is probably the most advanced and expensive deck technology on the market.
For its construction a kind of padded carbon fiber sheet is created within the deck itself is created.
The inner sheet is extremely light and almost as hard as metal. It works as a backbone and makes the most resistant currently decks.
At the same time, to reduce weight and add strength to the table, especially on the sides, it is possible to react much faster than conventional flip charts making them much faster and more accurate.
Brands that use this technology:: Almost.
This technology uses the Feather Light Helium construction, but adds a carbono fiber oval extra sheet, all glued with exposy. The result is a lighter and stronger deck.
Between the wooden sheets it has five patented air chambers that significantly reduce weight without losing strength.
This technology uses thin wood sheets and adds one fiberglass. It is possible the thinnest deck on the market.
The glass fiber sheet distributes the pressure all along the board, so it is not concentrated at the ordinary points of rupture. At the same time, it adds a predetermined tension that gives the deck a greater pop.
Standard construction with 7 layers of wood, but using thinner sheets, whereby a lighter board is achieved.
Standard 7-ply maple construction, but with a gentle concave angles in the nose and the tail less steep. It also adds more flat area behind the trucks, to nollies and ollies with faster response.
Is the name Element give to their standard construction of 7 wooden sheets, which attempt to provide maximum rigidity and maximum thickness with sheets as thick as possible.
These decks are intended for young riders. They are based on featherlight technology, but the lightest and thinnest decks of the brand.
AS its name suggest, Light Armor is a technology intended for getting an extremely robust and light deck. It is achieved by adding a carbon sheet in the middle of the board to provide a high stiffness without increasing the weight.
This technology attempts to simulate the ligaments that attach the muscles of our body. The decks that use 'ligament' have a wide strip of polymer in the middle of the board, very strong and flexible, and keep all together even to finishing a trick with a broken deck. The weight is the same as conventional 7-Ply decks, but they have much more pop and maintain rigidity longer.
Prospec decks are built with sheets of different thickness, thicker in the middle and thinner at the edges so these boards have greater stability and greater pop by a kind of spring effect.
Is the name Santa Cruz give to their 7-wooden-sheet construction.
To get an extra rigidity and long lasting, an upper sheet of fiber is added to the six-maple-sheet construction.
Do you remember a video of a car passing over a skateboard without breaking the deck? It was the presentation of this technology. The Powell Peralta Flight TM decks use Canadian maple with reinforced fibers, a very careful structure and the best infused epoxy.
The result is a thinner board, much more resistant to breaking, and an "everlasting pop" that doesn't fade as the deck slowly wears.


text:
19 January 2016 Reed Smith Client Alerts
Implementation Day - 16 January 2016
Home Perspectives Implementation Day - 16 January 2016
Authors: Brett Hillis Jane Sarma Julianne K. Nowicki Leigh T. Hansson
Implementation Day is here. On the evening of 16 January 2016, the EU and the United States lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The lifting of sanctions followed receipt of the necessary report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had been sent on that day to the UN Security Council verifying Iran's compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA (see our client alert of 15 July 2015).
What can you do now?
In broad terms (and each situation still requires individual examination), if you are a U.S. person, there is little real cause for exuberant celebration. If you are a non-U.S. person, there is cause for cautious celebration but the era of due diligence is not entirely over.
The United States nuclear-related restrictions will remain in place for U.S. persons. The United States has, however, lifted most of its nuclear-related restrictions for non-U.S. persons. The EU has also lifted most of its nuclear-related restrictions.
For parties to international trade transactions, each proposed transaction has a counterparty, product, destination, insurance and finance component. Each of these must pass through careful consideration before a proposed transaction may be concluded.
Prohibitions have been lifted on a number of products in so far as they relate to non-U.S. persons. As a result, a non-U.S. shipowner and/or trader may now deal with most or many more products in and out of Iran. This is subject to no other counterparty being one of the remaining EU designated individuals or entities or OFAC SDNs in respect of which or whom secondary sanctions still attach. It is also subject to compliance with insurance and finance requirements. It is important to note that some products require that prior authorisation be obtained from the competent authority of the relevant EU Member State.
U.S. insurers and reinsurers and banks are still prohibited from Iran-connected activity. The prudent non-U.S. person, should, therefore, first very carefully consider its insurance and finance documentation to avoid the risk of potential default from trading with Iran. The U.S. dimension for non-U.S. persons has not entirely disappeared.
While the changes are liberalising, particularly for non-U.S. persons, it is still critical that companies conduct thorough due diligence for all transactions involving Iran. For companies that choose to venture into Iran, it is important to recognise that a number of practical limitations are still in place – like the inability to conduct business in U.S. dollar transactions.
The U.S. government has removed a significant number of individuals and entities from the lists of persons subject to Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions, including the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Despite this move, hundreds still remain sanctioned and non-U.S. persons must remain vigilant in monitoring their trading partners or risk being subject to secondary sanctions.
The EU has removed a large number of prohibitions and restrictions previously in place. These include dealing with Iran in (a) key equipment or technology for the oil, gas and petrochemical industries, (b) key naval equipment or technology for ship building, (c) crude oil or petroleum products, (d) petrochemical products, (e) natural gas, (f) gold, precious metals and diamonds, (g) providing insurance or re-insurance in Iran or to Iranian persons and (h) prohibitions on fund transfers to and from Iran.
The EU has also replaced blanket prohibitions with requirements to obtain prior authorisations, including those relating to the sale, supply, transfer or export of graphite and raw or semi-finished metals.
As part of the staged de-listing of those designated under the EU nuclear-related sanctions programme, the EU has de-listed 36 persons and 316 entities from the list of asset freeze/visa-ban targets.
Health Warning! The specific changes are set out in more detail below. However, key points to be aware of:
The measures put in place by the EU and United States are not entirely in alignment and so it is important that both regimes are considered. Crucially, U.S. dollar payments in respect of trades now permitted by the EU may be caught, as U.S. banks (and U.S. branches of EU banks) are still barred from the majority of Iran trade.
Non-U.S. persons continue to be prohibited from knowingly engaging in conduct that seeks to evade U.S. restrictions on transactions or dealings with Iran or that causes the export of goods or services from the United States to Iran.
Secondary sanctions (i.e. those which apply to non-U.S. persons) continue to attach to activities with (a) any of the more than 200 Iranian or Iran-related individuals and entities which remain on the SDN List; (b) the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its designated agents or affiliates and (c) any other person on the SDN List in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery or Iran's support for international terrorism.
U.S. Position. The relevant OFAC announcement is to be found here: OFAC Release.
With the long-awaited Implementation Day upon us, the U.S. government has now lifted the nuclear-related sanctions against Iran "which generally are directed toward non-U.S. persons for specified conduct involving Iran that occurs entirely outside of U.S. jurisdiction and does not involve U.S. persons." See Implementation Guide JCPOA.
In its most basic terms, with a few exceptions, the U.S. sanctions relief affords non-U.S. persons the ability to reengage in industries they were previously prohibited from participating in, where they risked severe penalties and being blocked from the U.S. commercial market. Transactions for which restrictions will be lifted for non-U.S. persons, but will remain in place for U.S. persons are:
Transactions with certain Iranian financial, credit and banking institutions
Insurance, re-insurance and underwriting services for non-nuclear activities and transactions
Investment and participation in ventures involving the oil, gas, or petrochemical sectors in Iran
Shipping, shipbuilding, and port transactions, including the following operators: IRISL, South Shipping Line and NITC
Sale, supply, export, or transfer of gold and precious metals
Trade with Iran in graphite, raw or semi-finished metals such as aluminium and steel, coal
Sale, supply or transfer of goods and services in Iran's automotive sector
The U.S. government also removed over 400 individuals and entities from OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List), Foreign Sanctions Evaders List (FSE List), and/or Non-SDN Iran Sanctions Act List (NS-ISA List).
The names of those individuals and entities are set out in Attachment 3 to Annex II of the JCPOA. Beginning on Implementation Day, non-U.S. persons are no longer subject to sanctions for conducting transactions with those delisted individuals and entities. However, secondary sanctions will continue to apply to non-U.S. persons for conducting transactions with any of the more than 200 Iranian or Iran-related individuals and entities who remain on the SDN List. Accordingly, non-U.S. persons must still continue to conduct screening to verify they are not doing business with an SDN.
For U.S. persons, the U.S. government has issued a statement of favourable licensing policy to permit the export, re-export, sale, lease or transfer of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services by U.S. persons to Iran for exclusively civil, commercial passenger aviation end-use. Further, a general licence will also permit the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs, including pistachios and caviar.
However, one of the most anticipated provisions of the sanctions relief relates to the new General License H (See Iran General Licence H), which authorises certain transactions by foreign entities owned or controlled by a U.S. person. For purposes of this general licence, an entity is "owned or controlled" by a U.S. person if the U.S. person:
Holds a 50 per cent or greater equity interest by vote or value in the entity
Holds a majority of seats on the board of directors of the entity
Otherwise controls the actions, policies, or personnel decisions of the entity.
General License H does not authorise U.S.-owned or controlled foreign entities to engage in any transactions involving:
The direct or indirect export or re-export of goods, technology, or services from the United States (without separate authorisation from OFAC).
Any transfer of funds to, from, or through the U.S. financial system.
Any entity on the SDN List or any activity that would be prohibited by non-Iran sanctions administered by OFAC if engaged in by a U.S. person or in the United States.
Any individual or entity identified on the FSE List.
Any activity involving an item subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) that requires a licence under Part 744 of the EAR; or participation in any transaction with a person whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to part 764 or 766 of the EAR, unless authorised by the Department of Commerce.
Any military, paramilitary, intelligence, or law enforcement entity of the Government of Iran, or any officials, agents, or affiliates thereof.
Any activity that is sanctionable under Executive Order 12938 or 13382 (relating to Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including ballistic missiles); Executive Order 13224 (relating to international terrorism); Executive Order 13572 or 13582 (relating to Syria); Executive Order 13611 (relating to Yemen); or Executive Order 13553 or 13606, or section 2 or 3 of Executive Order 13628 (relating to Iran's commission of human rights abuses against its citizens).
Any nuclear activity involving Iran that is subject to the procurement channel established pursuant to paragraph 16 of UNSCR 2231 (2015) and section 6 of Annex IV of the JCPOA and that has not been approved through the procurement channel process.
This refers to nuclear activities not approved by the Procurement Working Group (PWG), a new regulatory body created under the JCPOA. This body has 20 days to determine whether to approve or deny proposals related to Iran's commercial involvement in uranium mining or production, provision of technical assistance regarding uranium mining/production to Iran, or investments in this area. If these transactions involving commercial applications of uranium have not already been approved by the PWG, a business may not engage in such transactions.
Importantly, General License H authorises U.S. persons to establish or alter their corporate policies and procedures to the extent necessary to allow U.S.-owned or controlled foreign entities to engage in transactions involving Iran that are permitted under the general licence.
OFAC has published guidance stating General License H is intended to allow senior management, board members and employees of the U.S. parent to be involved in initial decision-making regarding whether to engage in activities with Iran, as well as establish or alter their policies and procedures. (See JCPOA FAQs). With the exception of the activities authorised in General License H, the prohibitions on facilitation by United States persons under section 560.208 (See 31 C.F.R. section 560.208) of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) remain in effect. Section 560.208 states that no U.S. person may "approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee any transaction by a foreign person" in regards to Iran where the transaction is otherwise prohibited, such as financial transactions and transfers and investments involving Iran which likely require an OFAC licence.
Some additional examples of prohibited activities by U.S. persons would include:
Involvement in ongoing Iran-related operations or decision-making of its owned or controlled foreign entity with Iran after approval of General License H is obtained. (See JCPOA FAQs provided by the Department of Treasury).
Day-to-day operations of the foreign entity, which includes approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee of any Iran-related transaction by the foreign entity. (See 31 C.F.R. 560.208 and 560.417).
Exportation or re-exportation of U.S.-origin goods to Iran unless exempt or authorised by OFAC.
General License H also allows U.S. persons to make available to their foreign entities certain automated and globally integrated business support systems, such as integrated computer, accounting, email, telecommunications, or other business support systems, platforms, databases, or applications. The JCPOA FAQ's further clarify that while it is acceptable for U.S. persons to perform routine and emergency maintenance on such global systems, they are not permitted to do order intake for those businesses.
U.S. businesses should ensure that they meet the legal definition of "U.S. person" before assuming that activities involving Iran will be authorised by General License H. For example, a U.S. company that is part of a joint venture and owns 49 per cent of shares in the venture with a foreign company may be unable to take advantage of General License H. Even if a U.S. business can use General License H, it will still be subject to the restrictions listed above.
U.S. persons with foreign entities with activities outside of the scope of General License H may be liable for civil penalties under section 206(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. These penalties may include a fine of (1) US$250,000; or (2) an amount twice that of the transaction which is the basis for the violation. (See 50 U.S. Code section 1705).
Not all Sunshine and Roses One day after Implementation Day, on 17 January OFAC designated 11 entities and individuals allegedly involved in Iran's ballistic missile programme, in response to Iran launching mid-range ballistic missiles in violations of UN Security Council resolutions.
EU position. The relevant EU measure is Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/316 of 16 January 2016 concerning the date of application of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (Decision 316).
The EU legislative framework put into place on 18 October 2015 (see our client alert of 21 October 2015) has, therefore, come into effect, namely:
Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1861 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (Regulation 1861)
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1862 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (Regulation 1862)
Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 amending Decision 2014/413/CFSP (Decision 1863)
Regulations 1862 and 1863 are now effective to amend Council Regulation EU No 267 of 2012 (Regulation 267) to the following effect (references to chapter numbers below are references to the chapters of Regulation 267 as now amended).
All references to annexes are to the annexes to Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012. In very broad/general terms:
Annex I relates to goods and technology, including software, which are dual-use items or technology.
Annexes II and III relate to other goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water related activities to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or has identified as outstanding.
Annex VIIA includes software for integrating industrial processes which is relevant to industries controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or which is relevant to Iran's nuclear programme.
Annex VIIB includes graphite and raw or semi-finished metals (e.g. aluminium and steel), which are relevant to industries controlled by the IRGC or which are relevant to Iran's nuclear programme.
Chapter II: Export and Import Restrictions Prohibitions and restrictions related to the following have been removed:
Key equipment or technology listed in Annexes VI and VIA (for the oil, gas and petrochemical industries in Iran).
Key naval equipment or technology listed in Annex VIB (for ship building, maintenance or refit, including equipment or technology used in the construction of oil tankers).
Crude oil or petroleum products.
Petrochemical products.
Natural gas.
Gold, precious metals and diamonds.
Transfer or export of newly printed or unissued Iranian denominated banknotes and minted coinage to or for the benefit of the Central Bank of Iran.
Prior authorisation is required from the competent authority of the relevant EU Member State:
For the sale, supply, transfer or export of:
Goods and technology listed in Annexes I or II
Software listed in Annex VIIA
Graphite and raw or semi-finished metals listed in Annex VIIB
whether or not originating in the EU, to any Iranian person/entity or for use in Iran.
For the purchase, import or transport from Iran of goods and technology listed in Annexes I or II, whether or not originating in Iran.
For the provision of (i) technical assistance or brokering services and (ii) financing or financial assistance, related to:
Goods and technology listed in Annex I or II
Software listed in Annex VII
to any Iranian person/entity or for use in Iran.
Before entering into any arrangement with an Iranian person/entity or any person/entity acting on their behalf or at their direction that would enable them to participate in or increase its participation in commercial activities involving (i) uranium mining, (ii) production or use of nuclear materials listed in Part 1 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group list (set out in Regulation 1861) or (iii) technologies listed in Annex II.
It is prohibited to:
Sell, supply, transfer or export the goods and technology listed in Annex III, whether or not originating in the EU, to any Iranian person/entity or for use in Iran.
Purchase, import or transport from Iran goods and technology listed in Annex III, whether the item concerned originates in Iran or not.
Provide (i) technical assistance or brokering services and (ii) financing or financial assistance, related to goods and technology listed in Annex III or the Common Military List (including providing manufacture, maintenance and use of goods and technology on that list), to any Iranian person/entity or for use in Iran.
Enter into any arrangement with an Iranian person/entity or anyone acting on their behalf or at their direction that would enable them to participate in or increase its participation in commercial activities involving technologies listed in Annex III or the Common Military List.
Provide technical assistance, brokering services or other services.
Chapter III: Restrictions on Financing of Certain Enterprises Prohibitions and restrictions in relation to the following have been removed: (i) the granting of any financial loan or credit to, (ii) the acquisition or extension of a participation in or (iii) the creation of any joint venture with, any Iranian person/entity engaged in:
The manufacture of goods or technology listed in the Common Military List or in Annexes I or II
The exploration or production of crude oil and natural gas, the refining of fuels or the liquefaction of natural gas
The petrochemical industry
Chapter IV: Freezing of Funds and Economic Resources It should be carefully noted that although 36 persons and 316 entities have been removed from the list of asset freeze/visa-ban targets (as part of the staged de-listing of those designated under the EU nuclear-related sanctions programme), a number of persons and entities continue to be designated. As a result, it remains essential to check counterparties to ensure that, in doing business with them, funds and economic resources are not being made available directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a designated natural or legal person, entity or body.
The list of designated natural or legal persons, entities or bodies is not static. It may be periodically augmented by the names of those who have subsequently been found to have acted contrary to the JCPOA.
Chapter V: Restrictions on Transfers of Funds and on Financial Services This relates to certain banking activities and the provision of insurance or reinsurance. The following is no longer prohibited, nor requires permission:
The transfer of funds between EU and Iranian persons and entities, including financial institutions.
Certain banking activities: the selling or purchasing of public or public guaranteed bonds directly or indirectly to or from Iran or its government, and its public bodies, corporations and agencies, or credit or financial institutions domiciled in Iran, or providing brokering services in respect of the same.
The providing of insurance or re-insurance or the brokering of insurance or reinsurance to Iran or its government, its public bodies, corporations and agencies, an Iranian person, entity or body other than a natural person.
This relaxation does remain subject to the provisions mentioned above in relation to asset freezes. Checking of counterparties remains important.
Chapter VI: Restrictions on Transport The restrictions on transport have been reformulated. It is prohibited to provide:
Bunkering or ship supply services, or any other servicing of vessels, to vessels owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body, where the providers have information that provides reasonable grounds to determine that the vessels carry goods covered by the Common Military List or goods whose supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited under Regulation 267, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes.
Engineering and maintenance services to cargo aircraft owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an Iranian person, entity or body, where the providers of the service have information that provides reasonable grounds to determine that the cargo aircraft carry goods governed by the Common Military List or goods the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited under Regulation 267, unless the provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian and safety purposes.
Prohibitions and restrictions in relation to the following have been removed:
Providing classification services.
Supervising and participating in the design, construction and repair of ships and their parts.
Inspecting, testing and certifying marine equipment, materials and components.
Carrying out of surveys, inspections, audits and visits and the issuance, renewal or endorsement of the relevant certificates and documents of compliance on behalf of the flag State administration.
Making available to any Iranian person of entity, vessels designed for the transport or storage of oil or petrochemical products.
As is generally the case, this is subject to the provisions mentioned above in relation to asset freezes. Checking of counterparties remains important.
Chapter VII: General and Final Provisions Most importantly, the prohibition remains against participating, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent identified measures.
What next? This paves the way for the IAEA to begin verifying and monitoring Iran's nuclear-related commitments under JCPOA.
The EU and US have reserved the right to 'snap back' sanctions on if Iran is found to have violated its obligations.
Following Implementation Day, the JCPOA provides for Transition Day, which will occur either (a) eight years from Adoption Day (that is to say eight years from 18 October 2015) or (b) upon a report from the IAEA, together with confirmation from the UN Security Council, that the IAEA has concluded that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier. Transition Day will mark the next stage in the easing of sanctions, when further terminations and amendments will be made.
'UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) Termination Day' will occur 10 years from Adoption Day (that is to say ten years from 18 October 2015), provided that the provisions of previous resolutions have not been reinstated. On this day, all provisions and measures imposed by the UN Security Council will terminate, and the UN Security Council will no longer be seized of the Iran nuclear issue.
Within this timeframe, the E3/EU+3 (or the P5+1, comprising the United States, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany) and Iran will meet at the ministerial level every two years, or earlier if needed, in order to review and address progress and to adopt appropriate decisions by consensus.
If you have any queries about the contents of this alert, or about sanctions regimes in general, please contact one of the authors of this alert, sanctionsteam@reedsmith.com or your usual contact at Reed Smith.
Capabilities: Commodities Energy & Natural Resources Regulatory & Investigations Shipping
Offices: Washington, D.C. New York London
Arbitrating allegations of corruption in international business transactions – problems and solutions at Paris Arbitration Week 2020
Environmental law update for the shipping and offshore sector
PFAS: your newest "chemical of concern"
Oil major's victory in Ukraine sanctions dispute sheds light on complex aspects of U.S. sanctions