The sysadmin from noob



  • My co-worker comes up to me in furious anger.

     

    "I just got an email from our system admin. He is asking what this 'Tomcat' process is and to give him a reason why it keeps using CPU all the time. And can he eliminate it."

     

    Background: Tomcat runs the web application which is the sole responsibility of that admin, other than creating backups, which he is no longer entrusted with.



  • @astonerbum said:

    My co-worker comes up to me in furious anger.

     

    "I just got an email from our system admin. He is asking what this 'Tomcat' process is and to give him a reason why it keeps using CPU all the time. And can he eliminate it."

     

    Background: Tomcat runs the web application which is the sole responsibility of that admin, other than creating backups, which he is no longer entrusted with.




    I see no problem with this; if you don't run tomcat, you can use a fraction of the hardware, and you'll never need backups.
    It's just an optimization from a maintenance and cost perspective.



  • @astonerbum said:

    And can he eliminate it."

    Why yes, he can eliminate it. As long as he realises that the consequence of that would be the elimination of his job and any chance of ever being employed in IT in this country ever again. His call.

    In all seriousness, though, how are these people getting jobs? I'm a purely-Microsoft engineer with almost no experience with Unix and even I know what Tomcat is.



  • @astonerbum said:

    My co-worker comes up to me in furious anger.

     

    "I just got an email from our system admin. He is asking what this 'Tomcat' process is and to give him a reason why it keeps using CPU all the time. And can he eliminate it."

     

    Background: Tomcat runs the web application which is the sole responsibility of that admin, other than creating backups, which he is no longer entrusted with.

    If this were my place of work, there would be the added layer that tomcat has been on that server since it was installed, and the admin complaining actually was the one who installed it after reading the entire project plan. Suddenly, he wakes up on a random Tuesday and is totally confused why tomcat is running and has ignored the past 500 days of performance logs that show it has been at the same CPU load pretty much forever. The encounter usually ends with grumbling about us not providing documentation and training to the support team, even though he was sent to Java training instead of me and I left him a 170 page design document in the standard documentation place on the network.



  • I probably would have told him


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     



  • Haha that's terrible. "Wings? Eh, they don't have to be symmetrical... it's close enough for a high performance fighter. But make sure the right one's a little more bent... there you go."


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    high performance fighter
    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

     

     

    And actually, you could fly one with the wings configured asymmetrically. You wouldn't enjoy it, but it was part of the training program because of the possibility of one wing sticking in midair.



  • @Weng said:

    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

    Jesus.

    I was making fun of a bad painting.

    You're opening up a whole new level of pedantic dickweed. Pedantic Dickweed LEVEL UP!!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I was making fun of a bad painting.

    You're opening up a whole new level of pedantic dickweed. Pedantic Dickweed LEVEL UP!!

    Apparently sarcastic pedantic dickweedery is indistinguishable from the real thing.


  • @Weng said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I was making fun of a bad painting.

    You're opening up a whole new level of pedantic dickweed. Pedantic Dickweed LEVEL UP!!

    Apparently sarcastic pedantic dickweedery is indistinguishable from the real thing.

    Yeah, but that's not news. That's what we have tags for around here.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Weng said:

    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

    Jesus.

    I was making fun of a bad painting.

    You're opening up a whole new level of pedantic dickweed. Pedantic Dickweed LEVEL UP!!

    Here's some more pedantry: the painting only looks odd because of the perspective.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Weng said:

    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

    Jesus.

    I was making fun of a bad painting.

    You're opening up a whole new level of pedantic dickweed. Pedantic Dickweed LEVEL UP!!

    Here's some more pedantry: the painting only looks odd because of the perspective crappy artist.

    FTFY.

     



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    Here's some more pedantry: the painting only looks odd because of the perspective.

    If a artist chose a perspective that made his painting look like shit, he's a shitty artist.



  •  If you haven't heard of Tomcat you have no business being a sysadmin.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Haha that's terrible. "Wings? Eh, they don't have to be symmetrical... it's close enough for a high performance fighter. But make sure the right one's a little more bent... there you go."
     And make sure the right wing is significantly longer.  A fighter should always be turning.



  • @Weng said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    high performance fighter
    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

     

     

    And actually, you could fly one with the wings configured asymmetrically. You wouldn't enjoy it, but it was part of the training program because of the possibility of one wing sticking in midair.

     

     

    stick with your Pedantic Dickweedery +1, this was really interesting reading for me ;)

     



  • @havokk said:

    As long as he realises that the consequence of that would be the elimination of his job and any chance of ever being employed in IT in this country ever again
     

    I see that you are new to this field. I once believed that hopeless, bordering on criminal, incompetence carried some sort of consequences as well.

     



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    @Weng said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    high performance fighter
    The F-14 wasn't really a useful fighter at all the way sane air forces would define it. The only reaason it's called one is because the US Navy is ashamed to admit in its PR literature that it still had a dedicated fleet defense interceptor in its inventory after the end of the cold war. It's a high-performance interceptor to the core - built from the same insane nuclear doctrine that birthed the MiG-25 and MiG-31. It isn't capable of limited-war fighter operations without assistance - the underlying assumption is that everything in the air that isn't yours is a valid target.

    That particular brand of crazy is perfectly suited to Iran, the only other operator of the type. It's also perfectly suited to share its name with a bloated, hard-to-maintain, enterprisey Java servlet container.

     

     

    And actually, you could fly one with the wings configured asymmetrically. You wouldn't enjoy it, but it was part of the training program because of the possibility of one wing sticking in midair.

     

     

    stick with your Pedantic Dickweedery +1, this was really interesting reading for me ;)

     

     

    Seconded, I'd like to hear more about this.



  • @Justice said:

    Seconded, I'd like to hear more about this.

    You know there's a General Chat forum where you can just post "HEY TELL ME ABOUT F-14s!" Just FYI.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @derula said:

    Yeah, but that's not news. That's what we have tags for around here.
    Yeah. Normally I don't use tags on principle because I find attaching metadata to be one of the more irritating parts of Web 2.25a3 but apparently blakey is broken without them.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.