Hey everyone, welcome to another episode of Wired for Hybrid. Today, we are joined by Maheep Diora. He's the product manager for Azure Load Balancer. So let's get right into it. Yeah, thanks, Pira. And hi, everyone. I'm super grateful and excited to be here today. And I'm excited to do a deep dive on Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer, which is Azure Load Balancer's global tier load balancing solution. So today, I'd like to talk about what are the components involved with Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer, some of the scenarios that Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer is really suited for, and what we've seen our customers use it for, as well as then a short demo to really show the capabilities and power of Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer. Okay, Maheep, before we get started. Yeah. Is this like, what is like the main, like the overall 5,000 feet high level difference between just your traditional load balancer and your Cross-Region load balancer? Yeah, no, great question. So the one liner that I'd give, or at the very highest level, is that the standard Azure Load Balancer today is tied to one region. So you can only deploy a standard load balancer in East US or Europe West, right? Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer allows you to, through a single endpoint, have multiple regions in the backend. So you can have a application that's globally present that's all tied through a single load balancer. So that is the main real difference. Okay, and that's very different than something like Front Door or other kinds of content delivery network, correct? Yeah, that's correct, and that's a great question. So the biggest difference is that Azure Front Door operates at the layer seven level. So it's really optimized for web applications, web traffic, right? And the other big point about Front Door is that it operates at the edge. I believe there's 186 edge sites that Microsoft utilizes. Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer, on the other hand, is really optimized for layer four traffic. So customers that really require ultra-low latency for their applications. Okay. Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer, the way we do our routing is also at the data center or regional level as well. Okay, so it's not like in the past where we had load balancers in every region and then we'd have to put another layer on top of it to make it go from one region to another. Actually, that is very similar to how Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer works. I do have a slide that kind of shows the topology of how Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer works and how it interacts with the other components. Okay. Yeah, run right through this. Yeah, so as we can see here, there's a few reasons why customers choose Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer. We believe we talked about the layer four traffic, so TCP, UDP, Load Balancing. It's also important to note that Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer is a transparent or pass-through load balancer. So any traffic that comes in isn't really touched by the Cross-Region Load Balancer. It's not inspected, no additional markup is done, which really contributes to its ultra-low latency because as traffic comes in, it's immediately sent to its next destination with low latency. And to answer your question about the topology, right, the way that Azure Cross-Region Load Balancer works is that you have your regional load balancers that are connected in each region. So we could say this first one is in East US, this next one is in West Europe, and this last one is in Southeast Asia, right? And in each region, you need to deploy a standard regional load balancer. But where Cross-Region Load Balancer comes into play is then you can link all of three load balancers to your Cross-Region Load Balancer. And so this is what I meant by that, you get a single endpoint now, right? Because all your customers need to do is send traffic to this endpoint for the Cross-Region Load Balancer. And then Cross-Region Load Balancer will then direct traffic to the appropriate backend, region, and regional load balancer. Okay. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Maybe it's not related, and you tell me whether or not I'm off, but I'm off based on that one, but considering that you mentioned that none of the traffic is touched or scanned or anything like that. So basically everything coming in gets routed to the other end. Where would you put the firewall in front of the regional or behind it? So that is one component. So I guess you're asking about gateway load balancer support with? Well, in infrastructure, we always kind of like in terms of security, securing the environment. I never expose anything from a data center or from anything internal to the internet without putting a firewall in front of it. So in this case, where would we put that? And it may not be part of this conversation normally, but do you have, is this something that customers are asking? Yeah, so I will say thus, the way that firewall and some of the other services that customers are using in tangent with Azure cross, or Azure load balancer today, is that if it works at the regional level, all you need to do is then chain it to the cross region load balancer. Okay, perfect. All right, sorry, I didn't mean to take you off track. Oh no, you're good. Now, we understand what the overall cross region like architecture looks like. What are the like all of the components and like how does that work? Yeah, no, that's another fantastic question, right? So few of the components that are related to Azure cross region load balancers, one is the main one is our global anycast IP address, right? So the way that Azure cross region load balancer works is we give customers a single endpoint for their global application. And this IP address is then advertised across multiple Azure regions across the globe, which is giving customers a global presence for their IP address. And the way your traffic is routed, which is a very big question customers always ask me is, is Azure cross region load balancer just deployed in one region and all my global traffic goes there and does it then get distributed across the globe? The way I would like to describe it to customers is that it's a little bit of an abstraction there. The way global load balancer works is in tangent with all of our data centers around the world. And so I do have another slide that kind of really talks about how the components of Azure cross region load balancer works, how our routing is also done. So there are two big components for Azure cross region load balancer, home regions and participating regions. So when you deploy a Azure cross region load balancer, you have to specify a region, East US, West Europe, so on. This is where your Azure cross region load balancer is deployed, but it's important to note that traffic will not necessarily pass through this region. And I'll get into the reasons why and how the routing works, but this is where control plane operations reside. So anytime you're doing an update to your load balancer, adding more back ends, removing some, all of that will be sent to this region. The other component is participating regions. So these are around 10 plus Azure regions, as I mentioned, that are scattered throughout the globe that are advertising the global IP address. And so when you send traffic to a cross region load balancer, your traffic is first routed to the closest participating region to you, and then it is forwarded to the closest regional load balancer to that participating region. If that participating region, it doesn't contain the load balancer. So, and it's also, before I get into the demo of how the routing works. Yeah. So yeah. Before I get into the demo of how the routing works, I'd like to make one call out. The back end regional load balancers that you can link to the cross region load balancer isn't limited to the participating regions. Every Azure region is supported for the back end pool of the cross region load balancer, but we only have a select few regions that are actually advertising this IP address. Okay. So can we think of it in the terms, let me see if I understand it properly. Your home region or that's that central region or it's basically just where the config sits. Correct. And then all of the participating regions are basically advertising that config. Correct. And data path and, or the way that data is routed and traffic patterns is all through participating regions, right? Okay. So that's why I mentioned that traffic may not necessarily go through the home region, just based on where the users are sending traffic from, right? If all your users are in Asia, but your home region is in the United States, right? Then all the traffic is really gonna get routed by our regions in the Asia or European area versus none of the traffic is really gonna hit anything in the Americas just because there are no users there in that example. Okay. Because when I was looking at your architecture load balancer diagram on the last slide you had, it's not like we're deploying that one cross region and then all traffic goes through that before it goes to the others. Correct. Yeah, like that's a great point, right? Like it's a little bit abstracted away. It's we're working with the data centers across Azure's infrastructure to really make sure we have a global presence with us. Okay. Okay, perfect. Because for me, when I first started looking at that documentation, I found that those diagram, for most of us who've been in that game for a long time and are kind of new to cross region, we're like, I'm looking at it going, okay, so now I've got like one somewhere that will route to across regions, but I still have to manage that one, but that one is basically abstracted. Right. I mean, when you talk about manage, right? You still have to make sure that the configs are set up correctly and you are doing the normal maintenance or checks that you would with a regular load balancer, but it's not a single point of failure in terms of if that one cross region load balancer region goes down, it brings everything else down, which is why we have these 10 plus regions that are advertising the IP address in case one of the regions goes down, something goes wrong, we have nine other regions that are still advertising your IP address and they will kick in as soon as the primary fails. That's fantastic. Okay, perfect. Yeah. Sorry, it didn't mean to cut you off again. Oh, no, no worries. So just going in to show a quick demo of how the participating region works. So let's say our user right now is in South America or Mexico, sorry. Okay. Let's say our users in Mexico, right? And our application and backend load balancer is located in the Pacific Northwest. The way that the routing would work is your user will ping the IP address of the cross region load balancer and you will be routed to the closest participating region to you. So let's say that's central US for us right now. So traffic will go there and then this participating region will then say, okay, what is the closest backend load balancer to me? And it will say, okay, it's the one in Pacific Northwest and then it will send that traffic there. And then it's important to note that the return traffic from your application back to the source will go direct. It won't take the same pattern as the inbound. So as we can see the participating region is really where your traffic is sent and then it is then forwarded to the closest load balancer to it. Okay. Yeah. So, and this is where one of the other components of cross region load balancer comes in which is our geo proximity algorithm. One of the key components I touched on before is Azure cross region load balancers really optimized for ultra low latency networking. And part of the way we achieve that is through our geo proximity algorithm which really figures out based on where the client is located what is the closest participating region and closest regional load balancer to them. And Azure will try to route that traffic to that closest endpoint to really make sure we're reducing the latency that clients are facing making sure that traffic is going the shortest path possible to ensure that customers aren't feeling anything lane or those really lane sensitive applications are like performing at their optimal requirements. Okay. Once it hits that's advertising or participating region and then it gets forwarded to the like in this case to West US, the traffic after that is that all on the Azure backbone or does it go back out over the internet? Yeah, so like if we talk about step one, right? The customer is gonna get into the Microsoft backbone network somewhere in step one, right? Wherever the closest entry point is from one, two and then part of three, they're all in the Microsoft backbone at step three again at some point it's gonna exit out and then be routed back to the customer but scrap like at like one and a half and two that's all done in Microsoft backbone. Okay. So ultra fast, ultra secure. Correct. Perfect. Hi. Yeah. When you talked about low latency load balancer so if we're looking at people that are like across the pond or like in a global setup, if you will. So your algorithm, your latency algorithm like does it use probes? Does it like, how does it decide where the lowest latency is? Yeah, no, that's a great question. So the way that Azure load balancer on top of its geo-approximity algorithm knows which are the correct load balancers to send traffic to is we probe each of the regional load balancers every five seconds asking them, hey, are you good? What's your health status? Are you able to receive traffic? All of these regional load balancers will then probe back saying, yes, no. And that is then fed into the routing algorithm, right? As soon as a region says, I'm not good, I'm not healthy, don't send me any new traffic, cross region load balancer will understand that and automatically route any new traffic to some of the other regional load balancers which is really where the disaster recovery, high availability scenarios that we built this feature for really kick in because as soon as something is unhealthy, all traffickers have been routed to the backups or the other regional load balancers which really ensures that applications are highly available, they're not prone to a regional downage or any issues that they're facing in that region, right? They're abstracted away from that and they can kind of protect themselves by having a global presence. Okay, and you kind of alluded to something here. What workloads are the best candidates to take advantage of this technology? Like is it like IoT devices that are sending data back to the mothership or is it some kind of web application or is it like that database replication? Like what's your view on like the number the biggest target application for this type of load balancing? Yeah, no, you touched on it perfectly, right? We've seen certain scenarios where this feature is being used highly by Azure's customers and few like certain scenarios where like we've really seen like really positive feedback from customers. So the three big scenarios that I would talk about are the two big scenarios that I would talk about are customers that want high availability for their application across a global presence and to those customers that also want disaster recovery capabilities. And for both of these customers, right? They're really looking for a low latency solution, right? Ultra fast, layer four, they don't need some of these, you know, header specific routing capabilities, SSL offloading, right? For that, I think we mentioned before Azure front door is a better option for them because you get those capabilities at the edge but Azure load banser, you know, it's fast, it's transparent, everything is then just sent to the backend as fast as possible. And you didn't mention IoT, right? And it's actually one of the use cases we've seen a customer utilize Azure cross region load balancer for. So as we can talk about in this scenario right here on the slide, who the customer is, was there a small IoT customer and they had a limited number of Azure deployments but they were scaling up how many IoT's they were gonna bring up in their application but as well as the number of IoT devices that were gonna send traffic back to Azure. And the issue that they were facing was that, you know as they're popping up IoT devices throughout the globe with limited number of Azure deployments right for cost reasons and for optimization they noticed that they were facing high latency. Traffic, for example, if there's a IoT device here in Europe, right? And it's configured with the IP address of the Pacific Northwest application again, right? That's an incredibly long transit that that packet or traffic has to take, right? And then let's say they spun up something new here in Africa, right? Then the company has to go in themselves reconfigured their IoT device to point to this new Azure deployment which is an incredibly manual process, right? And it's often tedious. And then I'd like to also throw out the case where let's say something happens to this region in Africa, right? All of their IoT devices that were configured to it are now sending traffic to a region or an application that may be unhealthy may not exist anymore, right? So then that customer's losing minutes or maybe hours worth of crucial data that they need. So what they came to Azure for and ask for is like, can we get a way to link all of our load balancers together to ensure that all of our IoTs have a single entryway into our application, but then it's routed to the correct load balancer? So what we ended up helping them do was roll out Azure Crafts Region Load Balancer. And so now what they do is they have all of their IoT devices point to this global Anycast IP address. And then when the IoT device sends traffic, right? They first hit the cross region load balancer. So as we talked about before, they're gonna hit the closest participating region to them. And then using our routing algorithm, geo proximity algorithm, we then forward the traffic to the closest regional load balancer to them. So in this case, Azure Crafts Region Load Balancer would recognize, okay, this load balancer here in Africa is the closest one to my user. So let's send the traffic there. And then likewise, the return traffic goes directly to the customer. So in this way, right? The customer now avoids long lane traffic. So they're avoiding this like whole transatlantic traffic pattern. They're sending traffic to the closest regional load balancer to them. But the other feature, right? Let's say something happens to this load balancer here in Africa. As long as the IoT is still pinging this one cross region load balancer IP, they'll be forwarded to this backup region here, right? While they would still face the long lane, their application isn't completely down. They're still going to be able to preserve that data that otherwise would have been lost if they still use their two regional deployment. Okay, that brings a point to me because I've dealt with enterprises and like government entities in the past that have by compliance issues with putting storing data or anything like in outside or in specific region. So if your customer is in Europe, your data has to stay in Europe. If your customer is in North America, it has to stay in North America or whatever that may be. Is there a rule in the routing that we can set that? Or is that something completely different more in the lines of graphic manager and front door type deal? Yeah, no, that's a great question. And as of right now, there is no routing rule or rule that prohibits traffic from hitting a certain region or not. As you mentioned, that is something that I believe AFD or one of the other layer seven load balancers might provide that capability. Azure load balancer as mentioned is transparent, right? So as the packets come in, from a load balancer perspective, we have no idea of what it contains like the payload. We just forward it correctly. Okay, but that if what you're trying to do is segregate data by geography, this is not the tool. This is to provide ultra fast, unendered traffic from your customers, your stakeholders to whatever is the best endpoint for them to connect to and get their data in. Correct, right? Like if there is that specific requirements as you mentioned then, that this product might not be the best suited for them. This is for customers that really have a global presence for their application and are okay with traffic hitting different geos as long as it meets their requirement. Perfect. And you mentioned that this was for high availability and disaster recovery. Correct. In the past, I've personally stood on stage at Ignite, for example, and said that high availability is not disaster recovery. There's portions of it that kind of like cut over to both processes, but that if you're designing for high availability or you're designing for disaster recovery, there's really some things that you need to think about differently. How do you view this? Yeah, no, that's a great question. And I agree, right? There are nuances of both that are very different and there are characteristics that you need to consider if you're designing for availability versus disaster recovery, right? But I believe there is a good enough overlap between them two that Azure Cross Region Low Balancer covers that overlap, right? They're fine-tuning that you can do as a customer when you're setting it up to, you know, gear towards more high availability or gear towards more disaster recovery. But from a Cross Region Low Balancer point, right? We provide both high availability and disaster recovery to those customers. Because high availability, the amount of data that you can lose in a failure is basically close to zero. Yeah. So if this server is not there, the load balancer is gonna send it to that server and then your transaction still goes through and you don't lose any data. Disaster recovery takes, in consideration, RTOs and RPOs, retention objectives and I forget the acronym for RPO now is, but in terms of how much data are you willing to lose? Correct. So how does that work? Yeah, so in terms of Cross Region Low Balancer, I believe it's more geared towards that high availability where if one region goes down, your application as a whole isn't lost, right? You're automatically routed to the next available region to you, as I mentioned in that slide, right? Where if the region in Africa goes down, your application, your IoT device, isn't sending stale data anymore, right? It's gonna be routed to that load balancer in the Pacific Northwest. But there's no actual service failover type within the Cross Regional Load Balancer. Well, I guess, let me ask you, do you mean by service types in the application? Yeah. So that isn't available, right? Like what we provide is regional disaster recovery, right? So let's say a region goes down or the entire application within that region is down, which is causing health probes to probe as unhealthy. Then we mark that region as down and move traffic over to the next available region. So we're really providing regional redundancy. Perfect. So, mate, we've been talking about this, like the abstracted load balancer participating region and you've mentioned IP addresses. So that's what I assume is a static IP address that's assigned there. How does that work and who owns this? Like can I use one of my IP addresses or is it one that's provided by Azure? How does this all work? Yeah, no, great question. So the static IP address that you're gonna configure with Azure Cross Region Load Balancer, that's yours. You configure it, you own it. As long as it's attached to an Azure Cross Region Load Balancer or even in your subscription, it's yours, it will never change, right? Okay. And the way that you provision it is the same way that you would provision any IP address right now in Azure. All you would need to do is specify that it is a global IP address. That tells Azure that we need to wrap this in those 10 regions that I talked about before, but that is the only real difference between the standard SKU IP address and our global SKU. It's important to note today that you can't upgrade a standard SKU IP address to a global today. As of right now, any global IP addresses have to be a net new deployment. Okay. So it's not like you have an existing one and you say, I'm just gonna reuse this one because it's already configured somewhere else. Correct, right. Like that scenario isn't supported at the current moment. Okay, perfect. Those IP address or that static IP address, how does it scale? Yeah, period. That's a great question, scaling, right? And how do you scale behind a single endpoint? And so I'd like to go back to a slide to really showcase how does the scaling behind a cross region LB work today and how is it all done through our single globally anycast endpoint? So going back into the scenario mode, right?  They have customers all over the globe and they have Azure deployments around the globe to really ensure they're meeting the low latency requirements for their customers. And as different geos of users pop up around the globe this customer is spending up new Azure regions to, again, ensure their low latency requirements are met as their business scales. But they've noticed a few challenges with their current scale up plan. So as users start popping up in different geos and demand grows, the customer has to add new Azure regions or additional deployments within a region to meet the demand. And this is creating IP management challenges really due to the overhead, right? So if we look at our map here, right? For each of the different load balancer deployments or Azure deployments, a user is configured to that IP address. So the user in North America's pointed to the load balancer in North America. Same with the user in the Middle East, right? They're pointed to the Azure deployment in the Middle East. And that's the way they're meeting their low latency requirement, right? They're manually making sure that customers are pointed to the correct Azure deployment to ensure low latency. But you can imagine as this is scaling up this is a bunch of IP addresses that the customer has to manage. They then also have to make sure that the customer is pointing to the correct IP address. And it's causing burden for them. And so what they came to Azure for and on top of that IP management burden, right? Going back to the case where there's an issue in that Azure deployment, right? It could be an application issue. It could be a infrastructure issue. Any sort of issue at a regional level can impact customers. So let's say in Europe, right? Again, there was an issue with the application. Something caused this Azure deployment to go unhealthy. Now the user in West Europe has no Azure region to point to, right? Until the customer manually fails them over to one of the other backup regions. And again, this can cause a loss of business for the customer while the customers are waiting for their traffic to go through. And these are all adding on top of each other for the customer as they continue to scale up their business. So what they came to Azure for was, hey, we like to scale up our deployments to really meet the needs for our customer. Making sure that we're deployed as close to the customer as possible. But our scale up plan right now is causing too many headaches and too much overhead for us to handle. How do we solve this? And so what we ended up doing with the customer was integrating Azure cross region load balancer. And with its static IP again, right? All the customer needs to do is send their traffic to that one global IP address. They don't need to worry about, am I pointing to the correct deployment? Am I making sure that this deployment that I'm even pointing to is the closest one to me, right? All the customer needs to do is contain that IP address and Azure cross region load balancer does the rest. So here, right? If the customer here in Texas is sending data to the cross region load balancer, we again, using our geo proximity routing and routing algorithms will route it to the closest Azure region regional load balancer to them. So in this case, again, it's the Pacific Northwest and traffic routes back. Now let's say it's the same automotive company. Let's say they notice a lot of customers are popping up in the East Coast and they need to deploy a new Azure region here or their application in a new Azure region to really, again, meet the low latency requirements. So let's say they spin up a new Azure region here in the Midwest. They believe that's optimal for all their users. Now, when the same customer pings Azure cross region load balancer, they will then get automatically routed to this new regional deployment and sent back. So as we can see, during a scale up behind Azure cross region load balancer, customers are then routed to the correct load balancer to them, but the customer themselves or they are client in this case, didn't have to do any application configure changes, right? It was all done automatically. It was done in an instant as soon as the scale up happened. The same story for a scale down, right? Like let's say we remove this deployment here in South America, right? Again, your end customers aren't going to notice that, oh, am I pointing to the correct region? My traffic isn't going to that region anymore. What do I do, right? Azure cross region load balancer handles all of that, handle scales up, scales down, all through a single static IP address. Okay.  Correct. So there is a additional hourly charge for the Azure cross region load balancer, but it's important to note that there is no data process fee for the cross region load balancer. And that is all charged at the regional level. So in that sense, we're not double charging you for the amount of traffic that goes through. You're only really charged for the hourly fee for the Azure cross region load balancer. And again, we'll drop the pricing link in the description below. So you guys can, you know, see the cost as well as, you know, make sure that it works well for your gas application and company. But what my, where my mind was going is if like this for scaling up and scaling down, this seems to be like a really, really cool solution. So that means that we should or our customers should start whenever you're deploying a load balanced application that by default you should deploy that cross region.  Like is there a migration path? Cause you mentioned that your IP address has to be a net new. So is that the same for the rest of the configuration? Yes, that is correct, right? This cross region load balancer needs to be a net new deployment. As of right now, we do not have a way for you to upgrade one of your standard load balancers to a cross region load balancer. So both the IP address and the cross region load balancer will have to be a net new deployment that you then link all your regional load balancers to. But can you link an existing one? Yes, yes, so all three of these load balancers here, right? They could have been deployed like years before, like years ago, right? And let's say today we deploy a cross region load balancer, you can instantly link all of them together. Oh, okay, so perfect. So it's not like if you know that you're gonna have to scale up at some point, but you don't have to start paying for that cross region load balancing up front, you can just deploy your application and then later when you need it, deploy a net new cross region load balancer and a net new global IP address and then link your existing sites to it. Correct. Fantastic. Yeah, okay. Do you wanna take us through a demo? Yes, I would love to. Give me one second to pull it up. Cool, yeah, so I love to share with everyone a quick demo about cross region load balancer. Specifically, I'd like to talk about the case where one of our backend regional load balancers is down for whatever reason and how Azure cross region load balancer will automatically route my traffic to the next available region, right? So looking at my cross region load balancer, right? I have a globally anycast front end IP address right here and I have three regional load balancers in the backend pool and each of these are deployed in different geos. This first load balancer is gonna be deployed in East US. The second one is in West Europe and this last one is in Southeast Asia, right? And if I give a quick ping to my load balancer right now, we can see hello world from East US, right? And so right now, let's say I have something that went wrong with my VM that's servicing my East US application. So for this demo purposes, we're just gonna stop it to forcefully make it go unhealthy. And so what's gonna happen is as soon as this VM shuts down, the regional LB is gonna start probing unhealthy. And as we talked about before, right? Every five seconds cross region load balancer is pinging all of its backend pool member saying, hey, are you healthy? Are you not healthy? Like give me information so I know if I should send traffic to you. And so as soon as this VM shuts down, it's gonna send a message to the regional load balancer which will then cascade it up to the cross region load balancer saying, hey, I'm unhealthy, don't send me any new traffic until I'm healthy again. So, and that's an important point, right? After cross region load balancer, it will keep probing all the unhealthy load balancers until they're healthy. As soon as they're healthy, it's ready to receive traffic again and will be automatically added back to the availability pool. Okay, one question about the probes. Is the probe like configurable in terms of like what to look for or is it just like a ping to the IP address to see if the server's there? Great question. So cross regions probes right now are automatic. They run every five seconds, as I mentioned and we're looking at a whole list of things, right? We're looking if the IP is available.  How many of them are healthy? Like we're getting multiple data points which helps the cross region load balancer understand the holistic help of your regional load balancer, right? Yeah, but if the server is there and the IP is there and it's responding and all other things fine but let's say IIS or Apache or whatever like web service is running on it, the server is hung, the service is hung. So is that gonna turn, is that going to respond unhealthy or healthy? Well, I guess it really depends on how the help probes on the regional load balancer are configured, right? Okay. If the regional load balancers, help probes as it's pinging its individual VMs are reporting healthy then in the eyes of cross region load balancer that deployment is healthy. As soon as- Okay, so the probe at the backend works the same way it always has and it's configured the same way it always has once it goes from that regional load balancer to the cross region load balancer that's just a different type of probing. Correct, right. Like when cross region probes the regional it's not then gonna probe all the backend VMs. It's just asking the regional load balancer, hey, you've done the probes yourself just send me the information so I can make the routing decision. So the probe for cross region it's more just aggregating the information that the regional load balancers have collected themselves. Okay, perfect. That makes sense. Thank you. Yeah, so we can see this VM is now shut off, right? So if we now ping the cross region load balancer again we can see that it's now saying hello world from West Europe. So as we saw right there, right? As soon as the VM became unhealthy that marked our regional deployment in East US as down and cross region load balancer automatically understood that and routed my traffic to West Europe which is the next closest geo to where I'm located. So that was a quick demo to really showcase how Azure Crafts Region Load Balancer understands the health of its backend load balancer and effectively routes traffic based on that information to make sure that customers are routed to the correct load balancer and ensuring high availability for these applications that are hosted with this feature. That's fantastic. I really can see a lot of like benefits of like using this worldwide. I like the fact that you're not locked into it like that you can have your existing load balanced application and tie them into something across region after the fact. The probing seems to be really straightforward. Like do your probing as you've always done on the regional and then just that information is gonna flow. It sounds really cool. If somebody wants to learn more about this, are there some documentation, some labs? What's available for them? Again, we'll share these documentations below but our documentation really goes over how does regional redundancy work? What is the ultra low latency benefit of cross region load balancer? We're kind of touching on all the points we covered in our conversation today as well as then we kind of go into these are the supported home regions, supported participating regions. And then as we mentioned, there are a few limitations that customers should be aware of before using this feature. So we also go into, what are the limitations things to consider, right? And then we also have a whole host of tutorials, right? On all of Azure's major clients, CLI, PowerShell portal and ARM template, how to deploy a cross region load balancer, how to kind of link it to your existing deployments today as we talked about. So we believe we have a decent amount of selection there that I would love everyone to test out and hopefully end up using cross region load balancer down the road. Well, thank you, May for this wonderful deep dive. I think we covered load balancing cross region load balancing how it works, how it routes, how it scales. Anything else you want to tell our audience at this point? No, just that thank you again, Pierre for this opportunity. It was a great conversation. And yeah, I hope everyone that's watching gives cross region load balancer a try and hopefully it helps your applications achieve high availability, those disaster recovery scenarios that we talked about. But again, thanks so much for having me here today. Hey, that was our pleasure. So Michael and I will be looking at further deep dives in the near future, but Mayeep, thank you so much for spending this time with us and for you at home. Make sure to go into the video description below and take a look at the documentation that Mayeep referred to, take it for a spin, see if it fixes or addresses some of the issues you may have in your own environment. And with that, this was another episode of Wired Fibrid. Thank you so much, Mayeep. All right, thanks guys. Thank you. See you guys, bye.


I know you're all wondering why we asked you here. Last Thursday evening, I told the American people that the road to economic recovery begins with a responsible budget now. I pledged to them my personal all-out commitment to work with the members of both Houses of Congress on both sides of the aisle to break the budget deadlock, and we've been doing that continuously. And last night, in cooperation with the Senate Budget Committee, we took an important step toward the balanced and fair compromise the American people want and our economy needs. We reached agreement on a three-year deficit reduction package, totaling $416 billion. Two-thirds of the amount will come from spending reductions and interest savings, only 23 percent from revenue increases, and while we realize no compromise can please everyone, this one meets the most important criteria. It will continue to bring down the growth in federal spending. It should measure financial markets or reassure, I should say, financial markets by sharply reducing projected deficits next year and in the years beyond. It will preserve our commitment to a stronger defense and to the all-important incentives to broaden the tax base by stimulating more savings, investment, production, risk-taking, and growth in the private economy. Let me emphasize one other point. This package includes measures to restore the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. What does I promise the American people? Social Security beneficiaries will receive their full 7.4 percent cost of living increase in July, and we will continue to protect the basic benefits of Social Security recipients in the future. And now with me this morning are some of the key leaders in the Congress that we've been working with in the past few weeks, and with their great leadership, and the leadership of many others from both parties, I believe we can put our country firmly on the road to economic prosperity, and I'm going to turn around and say thanks to these gentlemen right now for being with me. Thank you, Mr. President. Now I'd like to thank you. I may be premature, but a little bit of extra pain. We have to go to work now. We'll see you later. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, you're at $40 billion dollars out of Social Security. How can you do it, Mr. President? How can you do that about cutting benefits? You said you'd cut that. This year is a plug that is simply put in there. Based on, you will remember, there is a task force working, a bipartisan task force on restoring the solvency of Social Security, the integrity of it, which we told the people a year ago was lacking, and at that time this was rejected, and there were people who told us in the debate that, oh, there was no danger to the system. They now recognize, yes, there is. We have put in that figure as what will be necessary in the restructuring of the program in order to restore solvency to the program. Why can't you put Alan Greenstein in a dark room and clock-lock the door like Lyndon Johnson did and tell him to go to work down and finish his study? They are going to work now, and they are working. Can't you do it quicker? Well, we've gave them till December 31st. If they come in with something earlier, we'll be very happy about it, but that still allows us time. Can you assure that there will be no cuts in Social Security benefits in the future? I have said to the delegates that I appointed to that task force that the people who are now dependent on Social Security must be assured that they are going to continue to get their benefits. Are you passing the Social Security buck until after the election, sir? No, that was decided back when the bipartisan agreement came to have a task force, a bipartisan task force. We made an effort last year to restore the solvency, and if you'll remember it was made into a political football and not by our doing, and it guaranteed the continued benefits as they are to the people on the Social Security. Mr. President, to make the system solvent, the 40 billion has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? Either from increased revenues or from decreased benefits. No, it could come from an entire restructuring of the program, looking back actuarially, looking back down toward people who are just beginning in the program. As you know, there is a gigantic increase in Social Security tax built into the system, passed when it went into effect in 1978. We had one increase in the payroll tax in January. There will be two more in the next few years that are scheduled to take place. And the task force is supposed, and that does not restore the solvency, even though the promise was made by the previous administration that that guaranteed the program's solvency until the year 2015. It didn't even agree or guarantee it beyond 1984. Mr. President, you've said repeatedly that you wouldn't balance the budget on the back, so the taxpayers. That's right. But you've now apparently agreed to large new taxes that the taxpayers will have to pay one way or the other, the American public. What made you change your mind? No. If you'll remember the original budget proposal we made, proposed $13 billion of additional revenues, not necessarily in tax increases, but in changes in the tax structure, advantages that people were getting that we did not believe had ever been intended in the structure. And all we've done has come up on the first year, $7 billion on that. Now, that does amount to, as that goes on, over the three-year period, when you institute something in one year, then that continues and is reflected in the growth of the economy in the years to come, just as the, but the main thing that... What's the figure you've agreed to in three years, you know? It will be, it's 20 and 35 and 40 in the third year. You have to add it as up to $75 billion. No, that's $95 billion. $95 billion, my magical law. Well, isn't that a large tax increase that the American public will have to pay, sir? Not when you stop to think that maintaining our present tax cuts as we will, that that amounts to the $358 billion tax cut over the three years. Now these, the things that we're considering are not the kind of things that are going to in Pingeon the incentive features of the way we have built in the business tax cuts and the individual income tax cuts. No, no, that remains intact. Indexing will not be slipped. Indexing will not be slipped. Mr. President, are you now conceding what the Democrats have been saying all along, which was that last year's tax cut was simply too big? No, not at all. I am suggesting that the fact that we have inflation virtually down to zero and that it has come down that fast and other factors in the economy that indicate that the recession is bottoming out indicate that we would have been better off economically right now if they had not made us compromise and if the tax cut had been retroactive to January 1st, 1981 and had been 10% not five. We really are not beginning our tax cuts in reality to have an effect on the economy until this 1st July tax cut. Let me if I could also say something else to many of you. You seem to have been confused about something and have referred a number of times that the budget that we first presented in February was a budget that included a $182 billion deficit for 83 and then increasing deficits beyond. Let me make something plain. The deficit figures are the figures if nothing is done. They were not. In other words, our original budget proposal would have vastly reduced those deficits but many of you have continued to refer that our budget proposal contained a $182 billion deficit. It did not. Mr. President, one other subject, please. Come over there. I wondered if you would comment and give us your assessment, sir, about whether the United States has a creditable role yet to play as an honest broker in that we've come down on the side very clearly of Great Britain rather than Argentina. Well, we stand willing, as we always have been, to achieve a peaceful settlement under the conditions of Security Council Resolution 502 which calls for both a ceasefire and a withdrawal. And I'm not going to single out any particular approach that we're pursuing, but we're open to every approach that can. We now have the help of the President of Peru who has involved himself in these negotiations. We'll do whatever we can to help, but it must be within that framework. Wait a minute, I promised him. On the Falklands, I think there is some concern that the Falklands could escalate into a greater war and some concern even that it could involve eventually the United States and the Soviet Union. What steps have you taken, if any, to try to head that off from happening, such as contacts perhaps directly or otherwise with the Soviet Union? I do not, frankly, I do not see the danger of this escalating to that extent. And the steps that we're taking are the steps that we've always been taking and that is seeking within, as I say, the UN framework this kind of a resolution that calls for ceasefire and calls for withdrawal of all forces while this is done. Now, so far there has not been agreement on that. Mr. President, are you committed to following the... I'm sorry, let's take glue and no more, please. Are you committed to following what that commission advocates at the end of the year, even if that means cutting the cost of living increases of Social Security recipients? Well, this is one... No, I have to say there I'm on record and I don't think they would do that. I don't think that the people who are dependent on Social Security should be frightened any more than they have been with the political demagoguery that's been going on about this issue. The people who are presently dependent on Social Security must be assured that they're going to continue to get their benefits. Thank you. The Republicans have agreed on now in the Senate. This plan? What if they don't buy it, sir? You can't pass it without them, can you? Well, it would be rather difficult for them to explain how they did not want to be a party to a plan that was going to reduce the three-year deficit by $416 billion and would give us deficits that would go down from 106 in this first year to 69 next year and to 39 in 1984 with a continuing line downward that makes certain a balanced budget in the next ever year. Are you going to bring them in? You'd say the Democrats had caused the recession to continue if they don't agree to this. If they can come up with a better proposal or one that will do this, we'd be very willing to listen. We want to work with everybody on this. Are you going to bring in the Bo Weevils and start trying to build your own coalition? My goal from the very first and the reason for the gang of 17 and everything else was that I believe the American people in this time of economic distress should have had the assurance of seeing the Democrat and Republican leadership in the Congress and in this administration stand before them together and say that we have agreed on a plan to help cure this recession and reduce these deficits and so far we have not been able to bring that about but we are going to continue to try. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The gang of 17. What? What do you call them? The gang of 17. They named themselves that. They were 17 and they began naming themselves after they got to about 13 meetings as the gang of 17. Do you know what happened to the gang of four in China? But as I told Sarah one day, you know a sweet guy like me would. Five years ago. I know you're all wondering why we asked you here. Last Thursday evening, I told the American people that the road to economic recovery begins with a responsible budget now. I pledged to them my personal all-out commitment to work with the members of both houses of Congress on both sides of the aisle to break the budget deadlock and we've been doing that continuously. And last night in cooperation with the Senate Budget Committee, we took an important step toward the balanced and fair compromise the American people want and our economy needs. We reached agreement on a three-year deficit reduction package totaling $416 billion. Two-thirds of the amount will come from spending reductions and interest savings, only 23% from revenue increases. And while we realize no compromise can please everyone, this one meets the most important criteria. It will continue to bring down the growth in federal spending. It should measure financial markets or reassure, I should say, financial markets by sharply reducing projected deficits next year and in the years beyond. It will preserve our commitment to a stronger defense and to the all-important incentives to broaden the tax base by stimulating more savings, investment, production, risk-taking, and growth in the private economy. Let me emphasize one other point. This package includes measures to restore the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. What does I promise the American people? Social security beneficiaries will receive their full 7.4% cost of living increase in July and we will continue to protect the basic benefits of social security recipients in the future. And now with me this morning are some of the key leaders in the Congress that we've been working with in the past few weeks. And with their great leadership and the leadership of many others from both parties, I believe we can put our country firmly on the road to economic prosperity and I'm going to turn around and say thanks to these gentlemen right now for being with me. Thank you, Mr. President. Can I have a word with Mr. President? He may be premature but a little bit of a best of me. We have to go to work now. We'll see you later. Thank you, Mr. President. This is $40 billion out of Social Security. How can you do it, Mr. President? That figure... How can you do that without cutting benefits? No. That figure is a plug that is simply put in there. Based on, you will remember, there is a task force working, a bipartisan task force on restoring the solvency of Social Security, the integrity of it, which we told the people a year ago was lacking. And at that time this was rejected and there were people who told us in the debate that there was no danger to the system. They now recognize, yes, there is. We have put in that figure as what will be necessary in the restructuring of the program in order to restore solvency to the program. So, alright. Why can't you put Alan Greenspan in a dark room and clock-lock the door like Lyndon Johnson did and tell him to go to work now and finish his study? They are going to work now and they are working. Can't you make him do it quicker? Well, we gave them till December 31st. If they come in with something earlier, we will be very happy about it, but that still allows us time. Can you assure that there will be no cuts in Social Security benefits in the future? I have said to the delegates that I appointed to that task force that the people who are now dependent in Social Security must be assured that they are going to continue to get their benefits. Is the Social Security buck until after the election, sir? No, that was decided back when the bipartisan agreement came to have a task force, a bipartisan task force. We made an effort last year to restore the solvency and if you'll remember, it was made into a political football and not by our doing and it guaranteed the continued benefits as they are to the people on Social Security. Mr. President, to make the system solvent, the 40 billion has to come from somewhere, doesn't it, either from increased revenues or from decreased benefits? No, it could come from an entire restructuring of the program, looking back actuarially, looking back down toward people who are just beginning in the program. As you know, there is a gigantic increase in Social Security tax built into the system, passed when it went into effect in 1978. We had one increase in the payroll tax in January. There will be two more in the next few years that are scheduled to take place. And the task force is supposed, and that does not restore the solvency even though the promise was made by the previous administration that that guaranteed the program's solvency until the year 2015. It didn't even agree or guarantee it beyond 1984. Mr. President, you said repeatedly that you wouldn't balance the budget on the back so the taxpayer. That's right. But you've now apparently agreed to large new taxes that the taxpayers will have to pay one way or the other, the American public. What made you change your mind? No. If you'll remember the original budget proposal we made, proposed $13 billion of additional revenues, not necessarily in tax increases, but in changes in the tax structure, advantages that people were getting that we did not believe had ever been intended in the structure. And all we've done has come up on the first year $7 billion on that. Now, that does amount to, as that goes on, over the three-year period, when you institute something in one year, then that continues and is reflected in the growth of the economy in the years to come, just as the, but the main thing that... What's the figure you've agreed to in three years, you know? It will be, it's 20 and 35 and 40 in the third year. You have to add it as up to $75 billion. No, that's $95 billion. $95 billion, my master of law. Well, isn't that a large tax increase that the American public will have to pay, sir? Not when you stop to think that maintaining our present tax cuts, as we will, that that amounts to the $358 billion tax cut over the three years. Now, these, the things that we're considering are not the kind of things that are going to impinge on the incentive features of the way we have built in the business tax cuts and the individual income tax cuts. No, no, that remains intact. And indexing will not be slipped. Indexing will not be slipped. Mr. President, are you now conceding what the Democrats have been saying all along, which was, last year's tax cut was simply too big? No, not at all. I am suggesting that the fact that we have inflation virtually down to zero and that it has come down that fast and other factors in the economy that indicate that the recession is bottoming out indicate that we would have been better off economically right now if they had not made us compromise and if the tax cut had been retroactive to January 1st, 1981 and had been 10% not five. We really are not beginning our tax cuts in reality to have an effect in the economy until this 1st, July tax cut. Let me, if I could, also say something else to many of you. You seem to have been confused about something and have referred a number of times that the budget that we first presented in February was a budget that included a $182 billion deficit for 83 and then increasing deficits beyond. Let me make something plain. The deficit figures are the figures if nothing is done. They were not. In other words, our original budget proposal would have vastly reduced those deficits but many of you have continued to refer that our budget proposal contained a $182 billion deficit. It did not. Mr. President, one other subject, please. Come over there. I wondered if you would comment and give us your assessment, sir, about whether the United States has a creditable role yet to play as an honest broker in that great Britain rather than Argentina? Well, we stand willing, as we always have been, to achieve a peaceful settlement under the conditions of Security Council Resolution 502 which calls for both a ceasefire and a withdrawal. And I'm not going to signal out or single out any particular approach that we're pursuing, but we're open to every approach that can. We now have the help of the President of Peru who has involved himself in these negotiations. We'll do whatever we can to help. But it must be within that framework. Wait a minute, I promised him. On the Falklands. I think there is some concern that the Falklands could escalate into a greater war and some concern even that it could involve eventually the United States and the Soviet Union. What steps have you taken, if any, to try to head that off from happening such as contacts perhaps directly or otherwise with the Soviet Union? I do not... Frankly, I do not see the danger of this escalating to that extent. And the steps that we're taking are the steps that we've always been taking, and that is seeking within, as I say, the UN framework this kind of a resolution that calls for ceasefire and calls for withdrawal of all forces while this is done. Now, so far there has not been agreement on that. Are you committed... I'm sorry, let's take glue and no more, please. Are you committed to following what that commission advocates at the end of the year, even if that means cutting the cost of living increases of Social Security recipients? Well, this is one... No, I have to say there, I'm on record and I don't think they would do that. I don't think that the people who are dependent on Social Security and by the political demagoguery that's been going on about this issue, the people who are presently dependent on Social Security must be assured that they're going to continue to get their benefits. Thank you. The Republicans have agreed on down the Senate. What if they don't buy it, sir? We can't pass it without them, can we? Well, it would be rather difficult for them to explain how they did not want to be a party to a plan for the three-year deficit by $416 billion and would give us deficits that would go down from 106 in this first year to 69 next year and to 39 in 1984 with a continuing line downward that makes certain a balanced budget in the next ever year. Are you going to bring them in? Are you going to bring them in? Are you going to continue if they don't agree to this? If they can come up with a better proposal or one that will do this, we'll be very willing to listen. We want to work with everybody on this. Are you going to bring in the Bo Weevils and start trying to build your own coalition? My goal from the very first and the reason for the gang of 17 and everything else was that I believe the American people in this time of economic distress should have had the assurance that the Democrat and Republican leadership in the Congress and this administration stand before them together and say that we have agreed on a plan to help cure this recession and reduce these deficits and so far we have not been able to bring that about but we are going to continue to try. Thank you very much. What? They named themselves that. They named themselves 17 and they began naming themselves after they got to about 13 meetings as the gang of 17. You know what happened to the gang of four in China? I told Sarah one day you know a sweet guy like me would.


Hey everybody, welcome back! Welcome back to C++ programming, I'm Rudio the Null, and in this tutorial, last time anyway, we were looking at comments, really, really simple things. It was like a one minute or less video, did not take much at all. But now, we're going to move on. I'm going to go ahead and create a new file. I'm going to save mine as 05inputs.cpp. And now you can see that exists in my folder. Okay, you know how to start a simple C++ program. It takes the pound symbol include, include iostream. We're going to use the namespace standard. Don't forget your semicolon I almost did there. And then we'll go ahead and create our integer function, our main function. Have our code block and we're good to go. Ready to program. Now, if we were to take inputs, let's think about this for a little bit. We know because of our iostream and because of the standard namespace, we can use cout to display text. I'll return 0 over here just so we don't forget. I think I keep doing that. It's not a big deal, but I mean it's good practice, so try to return 0 all the time you can. And yeah, let's actually just, let's go C++ to compile 05inputs. Now we've got our a.out and we can say, yeah, we can display text. Really, really easy with the cout or cout command with the operators sending the less than symbol. What if we wanted to take an input? Well, there's got to be some way we can do that. If we input something, obviously we might want to store what it is that we've inputted. We want to keep track of that. We want to know what they inputted after all. So we need a variable to keep track of that. I'll just say int. I'll just say int input. And I'm going to declare that. It's not being defined yet, but we want to use this variable. Now we can say, okay, cout, please enter a number. Actually, let's say integer. Please enter an integer. And I'm not going to include the new line there because I have this colon and it might just look a little, it might look well. It might look good. Okay. Now that we've got this done, now we actually need to input. We need to be able to grab what it is the user types into the program. We're using cout to actually display. So I guess by simple process of rationalization, we might be able to take a guess. And I obviously know this is true because in the standard namespace in the IO stream, we actually have something that we can use called cn. And that's rather than out, it's going in. And we're going to use a different direction operator. Rather than less than, we're going to use greater than. And we want to know where is that input actually going to? Well, in this case, it's going to input the variable that we created up here. So now once we've actually inputted that, it's going to wait once we hit the enter key. We can say, okay, it looks like you entered input. They're like, yeah, cool. You did that. Way to go. And just end the line there. Pretty simple. Pretty, pretty simple thing. But let's see if that'll work for us. I'll get over my terminal. Compile this. I'll actually, I'm going to use two n symbols in bash so I can just go ahead and run the code all in once. Please enter an integer. All right. 45. Looks like you entered 45. Awesome. That works just fine for us. All it's doing is it's using this cn kind of command or statement and c++ to grab the input that we enter. Actually, after we hit the enter key, it stores that into the variable that we've already defined, sorry, declared integer input where we know we're going to use that. And then it will display what we actually typed in. That's really cool. Now, of course, we can do more with this. What if we wanted to use the operator that we've had before? Let's say that number doubled is input times two because we know we have that multiplication operator. We were looking at operating data earlier, operating on data. Let's run this code. Compile and run. Please enter an integer. Let's go 20. Looks like, okay, the number you entered is 20. Sweet. And that number doubled is 40. Awesome. Of course, this is really, really simple and really, really easy, but I just want to show you what we've learned and how we can use that. We've got our input with our cn statement and operator, and we've got our multiplication operator to double the number that we've entered, to double our input. Simple stuff. That's all it takes. The cn statement, and that's how you get user input in C++. Thanks for watching, guys. Hope you're enjoying this, and I'll see you in the next tutorial.


TheCube presents HPE Discover 2022, brought to you by HPE. Okay, we're back at HPE Discover 2022. This is day three. We're kind of in the midpoint of day three, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Wall-to-wall coverage. I think there's our 14th HPE slash HPE Discover. We've sort of documented the history of the company over the last decade plus. Anant Adya is here. He's executive vice president at Infosys and Saju Sankaran Kudi is the CTO and vice president of Infosys. Infosys doing some amazing work in the field with clients. Guys, thanks for coming on TheCube. Thank you. Thank you for not watching AD. Yeah, absolutely. So digital transformation. It's all the buzzword. Kind of pre-pandemic. It was sort of, yeah, you know, we'll get there. A lot of lip service to it. Some started on the journey and then of course pandemic. If you weren't digital business, you were out of business. What are the trends that you're seeing now that were exiting the isolation economy? Yeah, as you, again, as you rightly called out, pre-pandemic it was all about using sort of, you know, innovation at scale as one of the levers for digital transformation. But if you look at now post-pandemic, one of the things that we see, it's a big trend, is at a broad level, right? Digital transformation is not about cost takeout. It's all about growth, right? So essentially like what we hear from most of the CEOs and most of the customers and most of the executives in the tech company, digital transformation should be used for business growth. And essentially it means three things, right? That we see, three trends in that space. One is how can you build better products and solutions as part of your transformation strategy? How can you basically use digital transformation to expand into new markets and new territories and new regions? And the third is how can you better the experience for your customers, right? So I think that is broadly what we see as some of the things and essentially if you have better customer experience, they will buy more. If you expand into new markets, your revenue will increase. If you actually build better products and solutions, consumers will buy it, right? So it's basically like a sort of an economy that goes hand in hand. So I would say the trend is clearly going towards business growth than anything else when it comes to digital transformation. You know, I'll follow up on that. We had IDC on yesterday and they were sharing to some of their high level numbers. We've looked at this and it seems like IT spending is pretty consistent. Despite the fact that for example, B2C, the consumer business is sort of tanking right now, are you seeing any pullback or any evidence that people are pulling the reins back on their digital transformation or they're just going? Because if they don't keep moving fast, they're going to fall behind. What are you seeing there? Oh, absolutely. In fact, what we call them as the secular headwinds, right? I mean, if you look at the headwinds here, we see digital transformation is in the minds of everybody, every customer, right? So while there are budget constraints, where are all these macro tailwinds as we call with respect to inflation, with respect to what's happening with Russia and Ukraine, with respect to everything that's happening with respect to supply chain, right? I think we see some of those tailwind headwinds, but essentially digital transformation is not stopping. Everybody is going after that because essentially they want to be relevant in the market and if they want to be relevant in the market, they have to transform. And if they have to transform, they have to adopt digital transformation. Basically there's no hiding anymore. No hiding anymore. You can't hide the projects and kind of give lip service. Totally. Because there's evidence of what the consequences are. Totally. And it can be quantified. Yes. If you lose business, you lose money. You mentioned some of the, I won't say cost takeouts, growth issues. So given the trends and the headwinds and the tailwinds, what are you guys seeing as the pattern of companies that came out of the pandemic with growth and what's going on with that growth driver? What are the elements that are powering companies to grow? Is it machine learning? Is it cloud scales and integration? What are some of the key areas that's given that extra up until the right? Yeah, so I would say there are six technologies that are defining how growth is being enabled. So I think we call it as cloud, AI, edge, 5G, IoT, and of course everything to do with AI and ML. So these are the six technologies that are powering digital transformation. And one of the things that we are seeing is more and more customers are now coming in saying that we want to use these six technologies to drive business outcomes. For example, we have a very large oil and gas customer of ours who says that we want to basically use cloud as a lever to drive decarbonization. ESG is such a big initiative for everybody and ESG is in the minds of everybody. So their outcome of using technology is to drive decarbonization and make sure that they achieve the goals of ESG. There is another customer of ours in the retail space. They are saying we want to use cloud to drive experience for our employees. So I would say that there is pretty much all these drivers which are helping not just growing their business but also bettering their experience and meeting some of the organization goals that they have set up with respect to cloud. So I would say cloud is playing a big role in every digital transformation initiative of the company. Sajju, how do you spend your time? What's the role of a CTO inside of a large organization like Infosys? So one is in terms of bringing in an outside in view of how technology is making an impact to our customers and looking at how do we actually start leveraging some of these technologies in building solutions which can actually drive value for our customers. That's one of the focus areas, what I do. And if you look at some of the trends what we have seen in the past years as well as what we are seeing now, there's been a huge spend around cloud which is happening with our customers and predominantly around the cloud native application development, leveraging some of the services what's available from the cloud providers like AI, ML and IoT. And there's also a new trend, what we are seeing off late now which is in terms of improving the experience, overall experience, leveraging some of the technologies like technologies like blockchain as well as AR, VR, right? And this is actually creating new set of solutions, new demands for our customers in terms of leveraging technologies like Metaverse, leveraging technologies like factory, photo, and these are all opportunities for us to build solutions which can improve the time to market for our customers in terms of adopting some of these things because there has been a huge focus on the improved end user experience or improved experience, improved productivity of employees which has been a focus post pandemic, right? Which has been something which is happening pre pandemic but it's been accelerated post pandemic. So this is giving an opportunity for my role, right? Now in terms of leveraging these technologies, building solutions, building value propositions, taking it to our customers, working with partners and then trying to see how we can have this tightly integrated with partners like HPE in this case and then take it jointly to the market and find out what's the best we can actually give back to our customers. We've been following you guys for a long, long time. You've seen many cycles in the industry and what's interesting, I want to get your reaction to what we're seeing in a lot of acceleration points whether it's cloud native applications but one is the software business is no longer there. It's open source now. But cloud scale, integrations, new hybrid environment kind of brings and changes the game so there's definitely software, plentiful. You guys are I know doing a lot of stuff with the software, how are customers integrated? We're seeing more and more customers participating in the open source community. You saw what Red Hat's done, they're transforming the open shift so as cloud native applications come in you get scale open source software, cloud scale performance and integrations are big. Do you guys agree with that? Absolutely, absolutely. So if you look at it right from the way we conceptualize our solutions, open source is something what we have embedded big way, right? into the solution footprint, what we have. One is the ability for us to scale. The second is the ability for us to bring in a level of portability, right? And the third is ensuring that there is absolutely no lock-in into something what we are building. We are seeing this being resonated by our customers too because one is they want to build agile and scalable applications. It's something where the whole, I would say the whole dependency on the large software stacks, the large software providers is slightly diminishing now, right? It's all about how can I simplify my application portfolio leveraging some of the open source technologies? How can I deploy them on a multi-cloud world leveraging open standards so that I'm not locked into any of these providers? How can I build cloud native applications which can actually enable portability? And how can I work with providers who doesn't have a lock-in into their solutions? And security's got to be embedded in everything. Absolutely. So security is embedded right from the design phase, right? We call it a secure by design. And that's something what we drive for our customers right from our solutions as well as for developing their own solution. As opposed to secure by bolt-on after the fact. Yes. What is the cobalt go-to-market strategy? How does that affect or imply how you do business within the HPE ecosystem? Talk about that. Sure, absolutely. I think what we did in 2020, we were the first ones to come out with an integrated cloud brand called cobalt. So essentially our thought process was to make sure that we talk one consistent language with the customer. There is a consistent narrative. There is a consistent value preparation that we take, right? So essentially if you look at the cobalt go-to-market, it is based on three pillars. The first pillar is all about technology solutions, getting out of data centers, migrating workloads to cloud, ERP on cloud, cloud native development, legacy modernization. So we'll continue to do that because that's the most important pillar and that's where our bread and butter business is, right? The second pillar is more and more customers are asking industry cloud. So what are you specifically doing for my industry? So for example, if you look at banking, they would say we are focused on modernizing our payment systems. We want to reduce the financial risk that we have because of anti-money laundering and those kind of solutions that they're expecting. They want to better the security posture and of course they want to improve the experience, right? So they are asking for each of these imperatives that we have in banking, what are some of those specific industry solutions that you are bringing to the table, right? So that's the second pillar of our cobalt go-to-market and the third pillar of our go-to-market, as Saju was saying, is looking at what we call as horizon three offerings, whether it is Metaverse, whether it is WebTRA 3.0, whether it is looking at something else that will come in the future and how do we build those solutions which can become mainstream the next 18 to 24 months? So that's essentially the go-to-market. So that's interesting. So take that banking example where you've got a core app, it's probably on-prem and it's good.  How are they handling that? Are they building microservices or are you building for them microservices layers around that that actually might be in the cloud or cloud-native on-prem and green-layer? How are customers modernizing? Absolutely, brilliant question. In fact, what we have done is, as part of cobalt, we have something called a reference architecture or it's basically a blueprint. So if you go to a bank and you are engaging a banking executive, the language that we speak with them is not about private cloud or public cloud or AWS or HP or Azure, right? I mean, we talk the language that they understand, which is the banking language. So we take this reference architecture and we say, here is what your core architecture should look like. And as you rightly called out, there is KYC, there is retail banking, there is anti-money laundering, there is security experience. There are some APIs and those kind of things, banking APIs or open banking, as we call. How do we actually bring our solutions, which we have built on open source and something that are specific to cloud and something that are cloud-neutral? And that's what we take them. So we have built this array of solutions around each of those reference architectures that we take to our customers. Final question for you guys. How are you guys leveraging HPE and New Green Lake and all the new stuff they got here to accelerate the customer's journey to edge the cloud? Awesome. So I would say around three areas, right? One is obviously we are working very closely with HPE in terms of taking our solutions jointly to the market and leveraging the whole Green Lake model and providing what I call it as a hyperscaler-like experience for our customers in a hybrid multi-cloud world. That's the first thing. The second thing is, Anand talked about the cobalt, right? It's an important, I would say, an offering around cloud from our side. So what we have done is we have closely integrated the assets, what Anand was referring to, what we have in our cobalt, under our cobalt umbrella, very closely with the HPE ecosystem, right? It can be tools like the Infosys Poly Cloud Platform or the Infosys PolyNet Platform very tightly integrated with the HPE stack so that we could actually offer the value proposition right across the value chain. The third is we have actually taken the industry pivot, like what Anand again mentioned, right in terms of rather than talking about a public cloud or a private cloud solution or an edge computing solution, we actually talk about what exactly are the problem statements, what is there in manufacturing today or it's there in financial industries today or it's in a bank today or whatever it's relevant to the industry. That's an industry pivot. So we talk right from an industry problem and build that industry pivot solutions leveraging the assets what we have and the framework what we have within the cobalt plus the integrated solutions what we bring along with HPE. That's those are the three things what we do along with HPE. Yeah, and that industry piece is new. There's a whole data layer emerging. Those industries, those companies, they're building their own clouds and working with companies like you because they want to monetize, that's a big part of their digital strategy. Guys, thanks so much for coming on the queue. Thank you. I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Thank you for watching. John and I will be back. John Ferrier, Dave Vellante at HPE Discover 2022. You're watching the queue.


to the talk, devs per terawatt, our... This talk will be held in English. The talk will be held in German. The translation, of course, which you are listening to right now, is in English. But we can expect a lot of English slides, fortunately. And the talk will be about what the ideal energy mix is for our future. Our speaker is a nuclear physicist. And please give her a warm round of applause. Have a nice evening and welcome to Zelenik. So the town of Zelenik, where we are right now, has a population of only 13,000 people. And if you think about what typical Germans consume per day, and you multiply that by the population of Zelenik, you see that it's like 243 kilowatt hours. And I have put all the sources for my talk into the footnotes. So 243 kilowatt hours. So unfortunately, I don't see you guys because it's so dark here, because usually I like to ask questions to the audience. And I don't know if you guys think that this is a lot or not so much. So if you think of a nuclear power plant, it's like one point something gigawatts. So I don't know how much you consume. Of course, everyone has like an electricity bill. So for instance, I consume also like quite a bit. And so the numbers that I'm using here are of course like averages. If you look at the camp, then this camp has a population size of roughly 5,000 people. We have six generators generating electricity. And the average across the last couple of days was like 300 kilowatt hours. That means that this camp by itself consumes more energy than the entire town of Zelenik where we are right now. So this is a lot. C3 Power has a nice monitoring tool that I've shown here. This shows like the amount of fuel that's being burned per hour. And I looked at the showering area where people... And I looked at the times when not a lot of people were actually showering. And it's still a lot. And if you have like an average 12 liters of fuel for heating, what does it actually mean? So for instance also for my own home which is quite old. So if we only take the shower village... So the five days of the camp consumes as much fuel as two thirds of my household the entire year. The population of Zelenik is about 30% bigger just by this camp. And the energy consumption has risen by 120%. And where does the energy consumption actually come from? Of course we have energy, so we have light. But also people use hair dryers even under these conditions. So should people still use this? I don't know if people heat electrically or with burning things in this camp. Causes about 4 to the power of minus 4 in addition to what we would normally have produced. 10 to the power of 4 is definitely too much. And this is all based on other data that I had. Germany uses about 520 terawatt hours. If you look at the individual sectors for 2017 you see the different fractions. And also the source at the bottom is the same source for the next slide which we see here. So this is the current energy mix. About a third is coal and we have like one third regenerative energy. It doesn't sound too bad but you know one third of coal is still bad. And yeah so this is actually a lot of dirty energies that we have. And then we do what physicists usually like to do. It's doing thought experiments. We can create an energy supply for this country. It's ideal and we can basically decide what we want in this thought experiment. We only talk about infrastructure and how to... We're not talking about how to transition the current infrastructure to the new infrastructure. Just from scratch. Now we have to define some things. So what is actually optimal? So is it cost? Do you care about the cost? Do you care about CO2 emissions? Or do you care about people dying? And then the second definition that we need is energy sources. It doesn't really make sense for a state like Austria to say we're going to produce all of our electricity from offshore wind. And based on these things I have taken listed these energy sources for our thought experiment. Coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower. And yeah oil is not really a big factor in Germany. So I didn't include this because it doesn't really matter. And also Germany doesn't have a big oil reserves. Biomars I did not include even though it is used to some degree in Germany but there's simply not enough data or the right type of data that for me to work with. And there's geothermal energies which is something that just doesn't work with the German geography. So our variables are coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind and hydropower. These are the six that we want to use. So what do we want to optimize? We can look at the price. We can optimize the emissions. So what is cheap but also has low emissions? Availability is a factor. If you don't have oil then it doesn't make sense to use oil as a resource or hydropower. It's a classical example. So in Austria it works because you have many faults, many rivers which doesn't work in Germany because in Germany we have like just four percent of hydropower right now because there's simply not enough rivers and mountains. Then there are also external costs which is a bit diffuse or it sounds a bit diffuse. So everything that is basically collateral damage like Fukushima or Chernobyl or it's like CO2 in the air that causes people to die or any other catastrophes or... And the last factor is emotions. And emotions are actually quite important. They are important because nuclear power is evil and wind power is good. And then you can ask yourself how is this actually defined? And we can look at the data and see how people perceive certain sources of energy. So if you want to measure the price we can use the LCOE which is a levelized cost of energy. So if you take coal then of course you have to mine the coal first or if you have nuclear power then of course you need the right materials for the atomic splits. But this definition does actually not include these aspects. It only cares about the construction of a power plant and the running of the power plant. But in principle these costs... It's just for having something to compare the different forms of energy with each other. So there are actually quite complex formulas but in the end the most important part is to be able to compare different energy sources. So these formulas do not include the resources that you need to get everything run. So the decommissioning... So when a power plant is no longer being used... And if you look at nuclear waste you have to ask yourself is this something that you should include? Well maybe. The power generation costs come from this study. And this does not include hydropower. But it talks about solar power and if it makes the difference where you actually put the solar panels on the roof or somewhere else. And they also looked at wind energy. So they looked at the differences between offshore and on-land installations of windmills, of wind turbines, turbines. And you see that it's actually quite an effort to put these up. And different types of gases have also different types of costs for production. And these are the data points that are used for the generation of... And so for the calculations. The second point is emissions. There is a measure called CO2-EQ. And so this does not only include CO2 but also other related carbon oxides. These different gases are differently damaging to the climate and have different global warming effects. And in the end you still have to basically account for every factor and make them comparable. So he's another data source from the IPCC from 2014 where they tried to compare the CO2-EQ values. But technologies change and some newer technologies emit less CO2. And therefore these data points are dynamic. So this is what I used for my model. So if you just look at this then you see that coal is actually quite seducing. And of course you also see that nuclear plants don't produce much CO2 but they have other problems. So external costs are very complex but also very interesting topic. So there are many different factors that have to be taken into account. There are models that I will talk about later. So it's defined like this. So the people who are responsible for it might actually not suffer the consequences. But other people might suffer the consequences. And then these are external costs. And the polluter does not carry the costs but it's actually the people who are affected by it. For instance people who are swept away by tsunamis or by other natural disasters caused by global warming. And there are also beyond insurance accident effects. So things that are simply not covered by any insurance. Things that can only be covered by any action that a government can take care of. And then there are of course emotions. So for ourselves we consider hydropower a very safe technology. But it's not something that... For instance because there was never much of a dam break where a lot of people drank. Because there was never such a thing. Such a catastrophe. There are actually quite a lot of dam failures across the world. One example is in China. So at the very bottom of this table there is... There were a lot of deaths. And we in the western world did not really notice much of this event. And that dam break was actually a result of a tsunami. And I never heard of this event before. But this is emotions. Is it safe? Well we westerners only know it as a safe technology. This is my favorite slide. So this is part of the constitution. So this says that there is no atomic energy in Austria. So yeah we Austrians don't like atoms. So this talks about 23,000 deaths that come from a report. And this is just Chernobyl.  This is just the direct casualties. But this does not include any follow up deaths and illnesses including leukemia cases. And at this point we could do long term effect evaluation. But it doesn't really show up in any statistics. But then again it happened in a country that was not really well known for transparency. And we would probably never know how many people died indirectly or indirectly because of the incident. So I noted down the site. So page 276 from this report. So these are also the 135 refugees. So 135,000 refugees had to leave the exclusion zone. But this is only Chernobyl. This does not include Fukushima. But I mean if you consider that in some cases the evacuation went really smoothly. Obviously people got Yodin taps. So the casualties were not as extreme but they still happened. So again which factors do we want to optimize? So we want to optimize the price. We want to optimize the emissions. So in general. So we want to keep this low. We don't care about it right now. And of course we know that hydropower has some limitations in Germany. But I don't want to talk about emotions. But all of them. So we don't want to include these in the equations. We should make our decisions based on what is good for us. What is good for the environment and what is cheap. So it should be optimized. We talked about that already. We can skip this. External costs. I already experienced these. I went to Japan in 2011. We have some gamma spectrometry in the backpack. We have some gamma spectrograph. In the backpack the Austrian airline didn't want to fly there. So there were just a few airlines that flew there. We just flew there. We didn't know what will be there. There was no info from TAPCO from anyone. So we had a lot of iodine. So we had a nice colorful spectrum. So this was a grocery store in Japan. All the dairy products were removed. So about these external costs there are two good studies. For example, subsidies and costs of EU energy. It uses a second source. It's a report of the European Commission. It's almost impossible to read it all. There are some executive summaries. But you wonder is this what the data says? Or is this what you want me to think? So they did it. There's some thing called impact pathway. You think about what does the power plant emit? How does that interact with humans, plants and so on? Then there's the pathway. And we ask ourselves how likely is it? So either it's just that you can actually put a price on or there's deaths. And this is very sad. So usually they are not accounted for in deaths per terawatt hour, but in deaths per terawatt hour. So they actually transform the deaths per terawatt hour to euro per terawatt hour. So for example if someone can't work anymore, you just put a number on that. Or if he dies, then you put a number on that. So for getting the numbers of deaths per terawatt hour, you have to go into the depth of the second report. So then we go to the table of contents and look at the further right page. Then we see a little table very small on a big 4 page. And there's the data. So when we do this, we can't only think about how many people die when cold is transported or so on. But we also have to think about very rare events like, for example in nuclear power plants like Chernobyl. Such bad accidents also can happen for wind power. So there's two different kinds of wind turbines. So when that starts to burn, then the fire department comes. But the fire department can't do anything. So the cost there is the fire department. And you need to pay someone to remove the debris and so on. But that's basically everything. The report analyzes all of these data for the different energy sources and does so very accurately. So these are the results for the external studies. They were summarized by Staffelt and Wiktal Swedish researchers doing that for a Polish conference. They did it for the Swedish government to think about whether to turn off power plants or not. So what we see here is that oil has the most death per terawatt hour. So we see 80 deaths per terawatt hour in France. We have 520 terawatt hours in Germany. So these are really numbers that have some effect. So I took these numbers for that analysis later on. So let's go back to our thought experiment whether there's an optimal energy max that optimizes price, emissions and external cost. So we can now optimize this. So now we have the factor metrics. The sources are the ones I mentioned before. These are the hard numbers. I'll upload the slides afterwards because I didn't want to ruin the surprise. So the variables are coal, nuclear, hydropower, gas, solar, wind, all everything terawatt hours. So constraints that we have is that we need at least 520 terawatt hours. So if we only optimize for coast, if we don't care about emissions and death, then we get this. This is not very surprising because hydropower is just the cheapest one. But we only have a maximum capacity for hydropower of 21 terawatt hours. So we need another constraint. Hydropower is smaller or equal to 21 terawatt hours. So the next result is we get 21 terawatt hours, hydropower and 499 terawatt hours, nuclear power. This is only a price optimization. So nuclear power is the second cheapest one. And it's quite logical this result. So if we now look at cost and CO2 emissions, then we still get the same numbers because nuclear power has a... We have zero cost in the Department of CO2 emissions. So four... So the other sources don't have that. So let's look at the metrics again. So if we look at it, five and two cents per kilowatt hour and CO2, 12 and something else, I found that quite interesting. So if we add the deaths per terawatt hour, then we see that CO2 has the most to hydropower has one, solar power has one, but it's pretty expensive right now. Why is it possible that our nuclear power share is not going to work? So of course we can still do it better. I am a nuclear physicist, so I know what I'm talking about, but I might also be a bit biased. But I still think that there's still a lot of potential to improving how we handle nuclear power. But the question is what is actually important? What do we want to optimize? What is the focus that we should put on? Do we need to look at the cost? Do we need to look at what about the motions? Should we look at the cost? Or do we care about what is on the electricity bill? You will find me at the chaos balcony at Millieways. On Twitter I'm Julie Riede. Thanks for the BIMA template. I hardly see anything with the darkness. So if you have questions, it's really hard to see in the audience. Thank you very much, Julia. Please go to the microphones. There are friendly people for online questions. But you can also ask online. On IRC we have about two minutes for questions. Jawohl, please. Thank you. I would like to know if we include the full cost with CO2 emissions. Yes, it is. So the study does include some of the data. But it takes time to research everything. But you really have to dig deep to get all the data. And sometimes you only have data from the 90s. And the data is not really in a format that makes it easy to search. But I'm unfortunately not able to do this digging. Thank you for the answer. Question from the internet. I have a question. The price per energy for the nuclear power is does this include the waste? I told you it's not included. Because it's not part of the formula that I used. And therefore it does not include the waste disposal and the accidents that are connected to the disposal. Do you have an estimation of what it would cost like if it were properly done? I have no idea. I have no idea. That's my honest answer. So you could theoretically calculate it if you spend one to two years and dig for good data sets. But it's not possible within a month or two. But it's definitely not something you can figure out in a month or two. But I couldn't do it in this time frame, so I don't know. So ultimately I don't know. Thank you for the talk. And a round of applause. You heard it in Vortrag, depths per terawatt hour.