Infrastructure – different variants. What are the advantages of the virtualization layer?

The infrastructure that I see most often:
First infrastructure

Is the infrastructure below not simpler and better?
Is this the future or am I wandering the forest?
Second infrastructure

The first infrastructure.
– Many layers use more resources?
– Looking at the whole is more difficult and requires knowledge of more tools?
– In which layer should the applications be scaled?
– It’s harder to find performance errors?

Considering how computer hardware and I / O devices work, more conscious allocation of resources should give better performance than VM (e.g. join Intel Xenon and Pentium 4 then assign VCPU to different machines)

Second infrastructure
– At the kubernetes level, we can also scale horizontally depending on the needs, we can also set resources for every container.
– OS, thanks to Linux users accounts, allows for secure administration.

I have one doubt which is better. Applications that grow over time and need to keep increasing the space on the disks.

Are there security advantages to adding an OTP to SSH connections?

Are there any tangible improvements to gain from enabling TOTP (google-authenticator PAM plugin) over existing public key based SSH connections?

Does it make security sense to enable TOTP based Two-Factor auth for SSH into bastion servers? I get what advantages OTP offers for web applications, but what about SSH? Are there existing examples for infrastructure security that uses OTP that I can learn from?

static dns entry, dhcp reservation, static IP diffrences advantages

I searched now quite a bit. And was wondering what are the advantages and risks of doing such stuff. I know for example our Firewall can handle DNS resolve also IP addresses itself.

I know for example if a user has a certain PC sometimes he has a static IP or DHCP reservation and/or a static DNS entry.

But how you decide this or what you should not do at all.

I’m kinda “new” and got confused on this recently. Maybe someone can explain or lift the confusion.

Thanks in advance for all helpfull inputs

What are the advantages and the limitations of using Formal Specifications?

I have researched through the internet on either the advantages and disadvantages that the use of formal specifications and specifically Code Contracts in C# might have. I have found various answers but I didn’t manage to identify the key points on the pros and cons as I have mentioned before. Could I have some assistance on that topic and any relevant source that will help me?

What are the advantages of Flame Strike over Fireball

Outside of the classes the spells are available to, what is the advantage to using Flame Strike over Fireball in A D&D 1st Edition? Many of the advantages I’m used to seeing later editions (mixed damage type, lack of treasure destruction) aren’t apparent in the original version of the spell. It may be that the only advantage is that Flame Strike is castable by Clerics, which may be an acceptable answer.

What advantages, if any does casting Flame Strike have over Fireball?

Are there advantages to testing accessors separately?

If I were to have a class with a property on it should I be testing the get and set functionalities separately or together?

class MyObject {     public string Name { get; set; } }  [TestClass] class MyObjectTests {     MyObject subject      [TestInitialize]     public void TestInitialize()     {         subject = new MyObject();     }      [TestMethod]     public void Test_Name()     {         string value = "TestValue";         subject.Name = value;         Assert.AreEqual(value, subject.Name);     } } 

In the example above both the getter and setter are being called, so the test passing depends on them both functioning correctly.

Another option could be to test them in different tests, to do this I could set the property via reflection while testing the getter and vice versa. Something like this perhaps.

[TestMethod] public void Test_Name() {     string value = "TestValue";      var field = typeof(MyObject).GetField("<Name>k__BackingField", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);     field.SetValue(subject, value);      Assert.AreEqual(value, subject.Name); } 

But does this have any real advantages?

I’m torn between the idea that a test should only test a single piece of functionality and the complexities and overhead of using reflection like this over and over throughout my code-base.

Obviously in this example the property is as simple as it possibly could be, but in a class when a setter is actually performing business logic, can/should the tests also rely on the getter? What if they’re both performing business logic?

Should I be testing complex accessors with reflection and testing simpler ones together? But what if the simple ones change down the road?

What are the advantages to fighting with a 1-handed weapon and a free hand?

So, in a melee combat situation in D&D 5E, I am to understand that there are 4 options as to the variants of weapon-wielding a person can use.

  1. Two-handed. A character wields a single, usually heavy/two-handed/versatile weapon with two hands. The advantage of this is increased damage per hit.
  2. Dual-wielding. By default (ie. no feats), a character can wield a light weapon in one hand, whilst wielding another light weapon in their offhand. They can use their bonus action to attack using the aforementioned offhand, without applying their ability modifier to the damage.
  3. One-handed with a shield. Easy to understand – foregoing damage for a shield to give a +2 bonus to AC. Moreso if the shield is magical, etc etc.
  4. One-handed. Here is where my question lies.

Now, as far as I can see, every option has a strength that makes it more attractive than the others for various reasons. All except #4: one-handed. Two-handed allows more damage, dual-wielding allows more damage/versatility, shield allows extra AC, but what does plain old one-handed give?

What I have found so far: classes like ranger can give a +2 damage bonus if you pick the dueling fighting style. You also have the freedom of a free hand during the fight (for grappling, though a two-handed fighter can reasonably take one hand off their weapon to grapple), as well as the ability to use your bonus action for something other than attacking with your offhand. Still, this feels weak.

So, what is there that one-handed fighting offers that other styles do not?

Essay on fdi advantages and disadvantages case study about elasticity of demand

Write me essay on nursing research paper on quadcopter

Professional Term Paper and Essay Writing Service


Cheap Custom Writing Service – CLICK HERE

Facebook bans white nationalism, separatism
Case study about rape victim in the philippines thesis writers in usa
Che Adams,…

Essay on fdi advantages and disadvantages case study about elasticity of demand