Aloha, it's June the second, not January the second, it's June the second, 2021. Welcome to What Now America? I'm Tim Apachele, your host, and today's title is GOP Kills the January 6th Commission, Why? And before I introduce my guests, I think I'd just like to try to take a little stab at that last part of the title, and that is Why. You know, Mitch McConnell, his comments about the January 6th Commission and why he doesn't support it and why he actively whipped against it in the Senate, he said that there's going to be no new facts and there's nothing new that's going to come forward and that only the Democrats will use as a political exercise to come after the Republicans for the 2022 midterm elections. So that's why Mitch McConnell didn't want to do it, even though his statement is so very clear after on January 7th, the statement was clear that Donald Trump was responsible for this and there needs to be a reckoning for it. But now there's no reckoning for it, he doesn't want it. So what did Joe Manchin have to say about it? Because Joe Manchin is a critical part of this. Joe Manchin may be part of the amendments, if you will, if the filibuster or some of the real changes or even the elimination of the filibuster. So what did Joe Manchin say about it? So the following, there is no exercise for any Republican to vote against this commission since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for. Mitch McConnell has made this political position thinking that it will help his 2022 elections. They do not believe the truth will set you free, so they continue to live in fear. That kind of sums it up pretty well. So without further ado, let me go to my guests. Today we have Jay Fidel. Today we have Stephanie Dalton, our Washington DC bureau chief. And today we have Cynthia Lee Sinclair, our correspondent. And Winston Welch, who's not here, who's currently on assignment, he'll be with us next week. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to What Now America. Good morning, Tim. Jay, in addition to what we heard from Joe Manchin and others in the Senate and the House, there was 35 House representatives that voted for the commission. There were six GOP Republicans who voted for the commission, yet it failed. It was filibustered. Was it because they're truly worried about the 2022 midterm elections? Or was it more they were scared of Donald Trump and what Donald Trump wants them to do and how to vote? You have to say both. This reminds me of Ann Applebaum's article in The Atlantic six months ago, where she pointed out six or seven reasons why perfectly responsible members of government in Eastern Europe capitulated to authoritarian government there. And one of the reasons there was a number of them, one of the reasons was fear. And that's a common denominator for the move to authoritarian government. If you saw Rachel last night, she was on the same path. We're talking about a move that's going toward the end of democracy. Talk about a book by a fellow named Ben Rhodes, who was in the Obama administration. Brilliant book. Got to find that book. Just coming out today. Anyway, I was telling you before the show that I think I've figured something out here. So you know what it's not. It's not for truth. They're not but for truth. It's not for democracy. It's anti-truth and anti-democracy, clear enough. And then maybe fear, fear of losing power, fear of Trump, those things I think they're all in play. But what strikes me is this is so similar to the GOP result in the first impeachment. Remember how they blew that off? They criticized the Democrats for the way they did it in the House. And then they voted not even to have a hearing in the Senate. Remember that? And the second impeachment, which was based on the January 6th event, where they just said, no, we're not going to impeach him. Extraordinary after it was so clear what he did. But I don't think McConnell is right, by the way, about we know it all. We don't know it all. There's a whole lot more to know about the GOP members of the Senate and Congress who arguably, allegedly participated in all of this and maybe even fomented it and assisted in the conspiracy. And I don't think they want anybody to know about that. It would be the end of their, at least, their legitimate careers. No, I think when you put all that together and you see how the GOP voted on the commission bill just a few days ago, I think what this is, it's a message. It's a message that the GOP can do whatever it wants. That the GOP, especially Trump, can shoot people. Clearly, felonious crime and get away with it. And that's the message to the base. It's not that it's right. It's not that it's democratic. As a matter of fact, it undermines the country in every which way. It's a statement of power. It's a statement of we can do whatever we want to do. And that has happened how many times already. It's messaging and it's working. And I, for one, am very concerned. Let me ask you, are the Democrats naive to this plausible position of yours? Are they naive and they continue like many times Democrats will do? Absolutely nothing about it. Or do they wake up and say, hey, we are at a crisis at the gate here and we need to take proactive steps to stop it? Almost like what the Democrats did in Texas when they walked out of the legislature on this voting rights bill in Texas, they walked out. They said, this bill is serious enough that we have to protest vehemently against it, not our usual sit in the chair and twiddle our thumbs approach. I agree with you. And not everybody will, but I agree with you. And I think the implication of your question is that the stakes are high. The country is at risk. When you think about it and we hear on America what now, we think about it. And I think that the Democratic Party has to get its act together and take strong steps. Now, we'll see what happens in the house. We'll see what Nancy Pelosi does about a hearing. We'll see about alternative methods of investigation. We have a show called Transitional Justice and it deals largely with justice against atrocities in Africa. And one of the common denominators is that if you have atrocities, the people who conduct them don't want them to be public. That's sort of the tentinning of atrocities. They don't want it to be public. And what has to happen in all those countries in Africa, especially in Sudan, is you have to have a truth commission. You have to tell people. You have to find out. You have to let them know what happens so it doesn't happen again. That's what we have to do now. The Democrats have to do that. So your question about whether they are aware, I think they are aware, but I think they're slightly infected. They don't want to take big chances. I think we all have to take big, huge chances or our lives, fortunes and sacred honor will be forfeit. Okay, thanks, Jay. Hey, Stephanie. Nancy Pelosi made four points of where we could go forward since the GOP filibustered these January 6th commission vote in the Senate. And she said we could either have another vote and do it that way, where they just round the truth up and just vote again in the Senate. Or they can have a House Select Committee be formed and start the investigation that way or let the existing agencies, the FBI, agencies like that continue their investigation and see what information is reported out. Or they can do a combination of all those that are doing current investigations and combine them and consolidate them into one investigation. Now there's one thing she didn't mention and that is the power of the president. Joe Biden can set up a commission of President Lyndon B. Johnson did that just after the assassination of Kennedy and he on January, excuse me, November 29th, 1963, executive order 11130 tapped the shoulders of Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and they had what is called the Warren Commission. So there's another option. What do you think moving forward should be done, Stephanie? Nothing, just accept the vote or should Nancy Pelosi conduct a House Select Committee and fill it with 50% of GOP seats, 50% Democrats. Or as suggested by, I think it was Keith Overman, forget it, just have Biden conduct a committee commission and don't load it with any GOP because it's their sole purpose to block it to diminish the truth that is reported on it and forget it, just let them report the truth and the truth will set you free. What option do you prefer?  We would be less than fair to them if we didn't just Benghazi them all over the congressional schedule. Well, that might be what happens. And that is just the only way to go, but ultimately I believe that we're in much better shape and that Biden is in much better shape to have a commission because what they will do on the deal, they worked out together for a by-camera commission is they will put someone on it who's just so obstructionist that it would just bail, put it down into bog, for as long as it could, like a Jim Jordan or somebody like that would just get in the way of it. So it won't be bipartisan, it'll be just one staggering around after another to try and block the progress. So let's go with the Benghazi model and let them have it how many times even once we get one done, we can do another. But I wanted to mention the NPR has been doing a lot of programming on the history of the African-American in the country and especially in relation to the kinds of atrocities that they're talking about now, like with the town in near Tulsa that was eradicated. And I guess there's one in Florida, if not more. One of the interesting facts that was discussed is that the second amendment was only put in the constitution by the founders because of the fear that there was, that there would be uprisings on plantations and people that were in servitude would get to the point where they would rise and fight. And the second amendment was put in place in order to allow the holding of firearms and the organized militia and having organized militia to handle these kinds of uprisings. And it evolved into only the white people could have guns, I guess men, only the white men could have guns, blacks couldn't even have guns. But they've been up to these tricks since the get-go, the suppression of the vote, the inauguration of the second amendment, which I was really surprised to hear that that was what was in the background of getting that into our system's paperwork. Well, now it seems the uprising would be white, white nationalist extremists. That's the uprising that's pending right now. And they are loaded to the teeth. We have over 340 million guns and we have 320 million people. And we like to look at this January 6th, it's something that has happened in the past and it's, the threat is over. The threat is not over. Just to break into a little segue here, just this weekend we had a Lieutenant General, remember Michael Flynn, the security advisor for Donald Trump and recently pardoned by Donald Trump. He was on a Q non convention. And one of the audience members said, you know what happened in Myanmar, which was the military junta took over the government again, what happened in Myanmar? Why shouldn't that happen here? And Flynn was coded to say, no reason, I mean it should happen. Okay, so here we have, go ahead. He walked it back the rest of the day. Yeah, he walked it back, but the video can't be walked back. Well, McMaster, some of the other leading commentators say, there's something wrong with this man. Ever since he was fired from his position in the Obama Commission, in the Obama administration, where wasn't he the head of the CIA or the DEA or one of those major organizations? And ever since then. He's whipping up, he's whipping up these ideas. So regardless if he's a, you know, a nutcase or not, he's whipping up these guys with a whole lot of weaponry. You know, Liz Cheney said no Americans should advocate support. You know, should advocate, advocate the overthrow of the United States. No one could be doing it. That includes Donald Trump. Yeah, and what's such a shock to me is that there's nothing that is done about any of these things. It's happening over and over. Unthinkable. Traitorious, traitorous. Comments are made over and over that disregarding our system and tearing it down and eroding. Oh, institution. How can this commentary continue on that's not free. There we go. So remember Lieutenant Colonel Eugene Vidman. Who is in the. Yes. Testified before Congress. In the first. The impeachment. Impeachment. Yeah. Well, he said the following. With these sedition remarks, comrade Flynn may have crossed the line. And not be qualified for active duty and possibly for court Marshall as a Jag, which means you're an attorney for the military. But you're not qualified for that. You're not qualified for that. I'm not qualified for that. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not certified only as a Jag. I'm qualified and also happy to prosecute the case. So once again, Mr. Flynn may have crossed the line. Who knows. What, what's going to happen. I mean, who's going to follow up on that. I don't know. Is this a justice department thing or. I mean already there's. With cases, but I don't know, hopefully. If it's happening so ubiquitously around the country, involving so many people doing so many outrageous things and making so many outrageous remarks, do we have the resources to prosecute them all? This is a wave of change, and it's very threatening because we don't have the resources to prosecute them all. Let me go to Cynthia on this. Cynthia, what Jay just said, do we have the resources? Should there be prosecutions? And how fast, if there is a commission report or a House Select Committee, should that be done right away or take Stephanie's suggestion that you bleed it out for two years like the Benghazi hearings? Well, I see, start it right now and then bleed it out for two years. Both, not one or the other in that thing. And if we don't have the resources to do this, then we need to get the resources to do this because this isn't going away. This is the thing that gets me the most about all of this. January 6th is not a one-off thing. We've got, like you say, we've got Mike Flynn out there saying these things. We've got Sidney Powell on TV saying that President Trump is going to be put back in office as the president. And I'm like, what? And I'm thinking. Well, we have reports that Donald Trump is talking to folks. Now I don't know how real this story is. I don't know. So I'll qualify it that way. But he's talking to people saying, I'll be reinstalled as president by August. Is this just a coincidence or is there something afoot here? I think something's afoot because it's a very specific thing that both Sidney Powell said too, in August. And now he's saying in August. So how do we protect ourselves between now and then? And as much as we need that, I should say needed that January 6th commission. In a way, I'm glad it's gone because now we can go forward without this bipartisan drag their feet, get in the way of everything kind of. I mean, they agreed to everything the Republicans wanted. That subpoena power on both sides, all the stuff that they wanted they got and still they voted against. Let me ask you this, the six senators that voted for this and I'll list them off here. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Mikowski of Alaska, Rob Porter of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Should they be tapped to be honest brokers in this commission? Or should it just be Democrats only saying, we don't care anymore. We're just gonna report the truth as we find it and we're not gonna be delayed and we're not gonna have the truth diminished or whitewashed. I think that it will be accepted. It'll be more widely accepted whatever the results are if we have Republicans on that committee that goes after this stuff. But I- So who's an honest broker of the Republicans? Lindsey Graham? Lindsey Graham beyond there. Right. That's funny. I mean- Yeah it is. Lindsey Graham, I think that Mitch McConnell, I think Jim Jordan, I think all these guys, Ron, what's the guy that's always, they white haired, I can't remember his last name. Yeah. I didn't think these guys all are, they're not just complicit. They're not just complicit by being silent. I believe they're involved. But the way the Republican Party was so in the same corner, all together on the same page, they would have to have more information in order to be on the same page. So some of them on the outers, things maybe not, but those main core guys, they knew exactly what was going on. We know that Mike Flynn and the Sidney Powell that were both there on the day, what the two days before the commission, I mean, before the January 6th insurrection, encouraging Trump to create a martial law. So we know that there was probably more than just three people in that room, right? I would see there's, the chances are good. And then we know about Kevin McCarthy over in the house on the phone with him, not wanting to be called, I'm sure, or subpoenaed, because he could show his guilt. Okay. Thank you. Yes, go ahead, Stephanie. I had two limitations on when this commission can be launched. Is there a stand? 11 took over a year, over a year to form. So no, I don't think so. But okay, then I say move on and let's make sure we get that bill through somehow that's gonna write these suppression laws. What bills, Stephanie? You can't get a bill through without the Senate. Right. And we still have the filibusters. So there's gonna be no bill. Well, I think that- There can be an investigation by a committee in the house and there can be an investigation under the auspices of the executive. Those are the two possibilities for, and I would say that, that the press not doing anybody any good, they are merely arguing what might come out, what did come out, and the reasons and all that, but they're not actually talking about getting into an investigation, a serious legal investigation. And my metronome theory, it's tick, tick, tick, the days go by and Vladimir is happy with the passing of every day. And so is Mitch McConnell and so is Donald Trump. Oh, speaking of Putin, Speaking of Putin, Jay, the representative for Russia just recently said that Putin feels that these people who are being prosecuted for the insurrection, they're being persecuted. And he supports them, of course. We need to- He should run for the Senate. Maybe he should run for president and he can probably get himself in. If I didn't be listening to my request, get back to what's important. We've got to get the people that can vote voting. We've got to work on that. He needs to work on getting- Stephanie, it's been six months, okay?  And so where is HR one? Nowhere. And I have to say that I blame the Democrats for not moving on it somehow. And the Democratic Party round the country, I think Rachel was making that point last night. The point is that you have all the- There's dozens of state legislatures that are passing anti-voting bills and directed racially and they're outrageous and they are a violation of the Constitution. It's not clear whether the courts will or when will. They'll do anything about it. And meanwhile, the Democrats are powerless. They can't get HR one through. They're not going to get, isn't it clear? They're not going to get it through. So what- Okay, well speaking of powerless, here's a question from Avira, Jane. I'll go to you on this. And that is, why is not the FBI arresting Trump for his seditious planning? Is there any bureau doing anything about Trump?  Why isn't anything being done? Well, I'm going to give you a short answer, Tim. Tomorrow, on America finding its way, we're going to discuss the legal options that are available to make that happen, okay? I can hardly wait. None of us can hardly wait, right? You know, in the 30s, they would call that a cliffhanger. Thank you, Jay. No, but a bottom line is, you know, we have a, what do you want to call it?  But if you look at the world today, again, going back to Rachel Maddow, you can see that we are moving in a way that is inexorably taught authoritarianism, country after country. And that's what's happening in the world today. Countries that might've been failing liberal a few years ago are moving under dictators to more authoritarian governments. And I think we are too. Otherwise, this would not be happening. 70 million people vote for that guy. And now the Congress is completely disabled and voting against truth, against democracy every time. So, you know, the question is, is the big question, and we don't have to get through it today, but maybe soon, will this change be nonviolent? Or will it be violent? I'm gonna get- Question, that's a, could be a rhetorical question at that, but that's a great question. But the question is, why isn't Biden dealing with the Joe Manchin issue? All that Jay says is so true. So what should Biden be focusing on now? HR one and getting this guy in line. Okay. What about that? Stephanie, did Joe Manchin learn anything from this filibuster of the commission? Did he learn anything or is he still playing cute? Well, he said he was shocked and surprised and disappointed that nobody would vote for the commission. He did say that, but I haven't heard anything about him since, have you? Well, does that help him become a voice to refurbish the filibuster? Not eliminate it, but refurbish it. Yeah. So why isn't Biden having him up to the White House to have some talk Turkey and other approaches? That's what I don't get because the only thing that counts is getting the voting situation under control through HR one. We've got to get in place to have the federal overlay on this malfeasance. These laws that are wrong and are excluding people. And the only way to do that is to get it through on the vote Biden can have if he gets Joe Manchin on board. And I guess it's cinema too. But nevertheless, well, I'm perplexed about that. Yeah. Why is that not number? I think we all are. I think we all are. And that's what makes us view the Democrats as spineless. They won't stand on their own hind legs to advocate for themselves. I agree. I couldn't agree with you more. Cynthia. I'm just saying, I hope the Secret Service is paying attention to that because this is not good news. Yeah. Cynthia, does the vote to filibuster the commission and the Senate, does that lead further into the big lie?  Well, I think that we don't. I'm not quite sure what your question was. Well, the question is, does that feed those with the proud boys, the boogaloo boys? Potentially part of 74 million people voted for Donald Trump. Does it further feed there? Does it confirm what they already have been led to believe by Donald Trump is that the election was truly fraudulent and the election was truly stolen from them? Therefore, returning the presidency to Donald Trump with or without violence is a means to an end. And it's valid to do so because they're patriots. They'll be patriots if they return Donald Trump to the President of the United States. Does it feed into that? The filibuster, is that what you're asking the filibuster? Does that further feed into their conspiracy? Oh, absolutely it does. Of course it does. Why? How does it do that? Anything that gives them power, anything that gives them even a minute of cover for the big lie? Because that's what is behind all of this. It's behind the voting, the horrible voting draconian voting laws that are being passed. It's behind the January 6th insurrection. And so if the big lie is still out there, then that means that we're gonna have another January 6th. This isn't the only one. Let me ask you this. Why doesn't President Biden have a special, a presidential, not even a press conference, but an address to the nation? Every president's done it. A special address to the nation. And address the big lie specifically and only. I don't understand why he doesn't do that. I think partly he's driven because he doesn't wanna do that. You're the bad guy, know where the bad guy, know where all the finger pointing stuff, right? I think that's what he's trying to avoid. He wants this whole bipartisan thing. And I understand, I understand it, but by the same token, I think he's wrong. I think he's dead. I do too. And I learned something a long time ago. Never leave a room when someone's accusing you of something you didn't do and you don't address it and you've left the room. And that's what Joe Biden's doing right now.  I absolutely agree with you. And I think, and the more it goes like Jay said, you know, with that metronome kick talking away, the further away it gets, the less relevant it will be. So the less sense it will make and then the more partisan it will seem. So doing it now, it would make sense. Down the road, it won't. So I think a lot of time he's gotta do it soon. All right, well, we've got a time and we're gonna go around the table here. Jay, your last comments about the commission or things related to it? Well, I take a page out of Cynthia's book, you know, every day that goes by is worse for the Democrats. They seem powerless. They're not doing anything. They need to take chances. Biden has to get up and make a speech. And the Democratic party has to come together and deal with all those state legislators. It is not doing that. So you get these relatively benign remarks that he makes and you don't get a sense of pushback on this. Now, what's happening is because of the passage of time, I think that the Trumpers are getting stronger and they're coming together. They're networking more than even before. And I don't think it's a joke about August. I think what's gonna happen in August is another run, perhaps while the Congress is on vacation, that's what happens in August, against the government. And the word coup does come to mind. And if we're not prepared for that, it will happen. It almost happened in January. And now the Republicans and the Trumpers understand better how to do that sort of thing. So I think we're on the road to hell. And I think it will be a coup rather than widespread violence, but that I wouldn't rule that out either. What's happening now is really remarkable. One other point before I leave you, and that is this, do you think that those 70 million people all believe the big lie? Do you think that those Republicans in Congress and in these state legislatures believe that there's a need to clamp down on voting? No, they know they're sentient. They went to some school, they know that it's a lie, but they accept the lie because it's fashionable and because it gives them power and it's part of a network and a message coming from Trump that he can do Fifth Avenue and he can do it all. And they buy that because it's not the question of truth anymore. It's a question of whether you accept the message. And to what degree are you willing to accept it for your power? Yeah. Yeah, to what degree do you really love this country? And if your life isn't quite so good, if you have a beef on this or that, then maybe you don't love the country and maybe you're happy to see change in whatever form. This is really nutcakes, but this is what's happened in other countries. Stephanie, your last comments. Okay, I agree with what you all say. I think I don't want to criticize Biden, but I think that we're onto something here and also with regard to the fraud in the election. Why isn't something coming back with, and where did these 70 million votes come from for Trump? And if that's not enough thing to go back and start taking an audit on those votes, let's go back to 2016. Where did those votes come from? Let's take a look at those ballots.  I mean, we never did do anything about the 2016 election. Now that's rife with, you want fraud? Let's go find some fraud. I'll bet you we can find that, including- All right. Thank you, Stephanie. We gotta wrap up. Cynthia, very quickly, please, your last comments. I agree with Stephanie and, but it's that whole fight, fire with fire thing. How do you, where's the balance? I'm not sure exactly, but I know one thing. We've got more and more charges that are mounting up and they're sort of escalating also against Trump, right? So that if somehow we could put all of the FBI's energy into that, we've got a few of the January 6th insurrectionists that are pleading guilty and turning state's evidence and they're coming out with, we were just there because the president told us to be there. So these kinds of things are gonna keep mounting but we've got to hurry up and get them done. Yeah, time is of the essence. That's too far. Yeah, time is of the essence. So speaking of time of the essence, we've run out of time here. So I wanna thank all of you, Jay Fidel, Stephanie Dalton and of course Cynthia Leeson-Claire. Thank you for joining us on What Now America? I can't wait for Thursday for Jay's show, America Finding Its Way. I wanna hear the answers, all of them. So join us next week also, Wednesday at 11 o'clock for What Now America? I'm Tim Apacheo, your host and we will see you then. Aloha.


Hi everyone, I'm Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com. Happy Friday. We're gonna make someone's Friday even happier because someone's gonna win a 3700 dollar eminent spot out of this blaster box break number 29. Now we're gonna do the break itself first, and then we'll re-randomize everybody's names and see who gets that eminent spot. So I'm gonna make it sweat it out a little bit. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it four or two, six times for each list. One, two, three, four, five, and sixth and final time for names and teams. We've got Danny all the way down to Stephen. Four and a two, six times for the teams. One, two, three, four, five, and sixth and final time. After six, we've got the Atlanta Hawks down to the Charlotte Hornets. Pelicans down there too. All right, so here's the first half of the list right here. Second half of the list right there. Chris with the Grizzlies, Louie with the Pelicans. Sort this by column B by team. And let's print and rip. That break coming up next in a separate video. I thought it was gonna be a silver Zion, but it's his teammate, Nikhil Alexander Walker. It's Bruce Brown, and there's Paul Millsap for Denver. Piece of his jersey going to Christopher and the Nuggets. Green, Bismak, Biombo. And a silver Jeff Teague. Deandre Hunter-Rookie card. Purple wave, Anthony Davis. Get well soon, AD. Which will go to the Lakers, and that's for Chris. All right. There he goes.  Someone's gonna win an eminent spot. So with Danny, Dan, Louie, and everybody in between, let's roll it and let's randomize that list three and a two, five times. One very happy person on top. After five, we'll get that eminent spot. One, two, three, four, and fifth and final time. After five, 29 sad people here, I apologize, but we'll get them next time. Thank you for trying. Two is kind of brutal too. But name on top is very happy and it's, oh, it's Gretchen. There you go. So there is no doubt about it. She had the top two spots. Gretchen, you're in. You've got an eminent spot for a fraction of the price. I'm Joe for jassbyscasewrakes.com. Got a couple more of these to do. Maybe a few spots straight up in that eminence. We can do that tonight. Let's get to it, jassbyscasewrakes.com.


Testing. Testing. Better? Hello. Yeah. OK. All right. Let's start. Let's repeat that. So this is HorrorStore is how we keep breaking the scheduler at scale. I'm Josh Harlow. This is Velobe. And another folk who is going to be in this talk but is not here today is Megal. Let's get into a little introductions about who we are. So I guess you can go over yourself first. I don't need to cover that. So I'm Velobe. I work for the OpenStack team at Yahoo. I work for the OpenStack development team at Yahoo. I'm one of the Magnum core contributors. Magnum is container as a service. And I'm leading cross-project efforts for the Quota Library, which is known as Delimiter. And I have with me the Oslo project lead. Yeah, hi. Hi, I'm Josh. And I'm now at GoDaddy. I'm doing OpenStack there. We have a public cloud, private cloud, all that kind of stuff. I was previously in the Yahoo group with Velobe before I moved out. Now the Oslo PTL for Newton. And I've been creating a lot of libraries and all that stuff. You can look at any of these if you're interested. Some of them are in Oslo. Some of them are not. Yeah, just been doing a lot of work there for the past five years. I think Velobe's been involved for two years? Two and a half, something like that. So we've been involved with OpenStack for a while. So anyway, why is scheduling important? So yeah, so why scheduling is important is everyone is aware of this Vice Professor Dumbledore. He said it is our choices that show what we truly are far more than our ability. So scheduling is nothing more than selection, which is eventually a choice that you make where you want to run your instances. May it be virtual machine instances, bare metal instances, or any container instances. So it's pretty important in the process of finding a right node where you want to run your instance and schedule your job. So especially in the context of Yahoo when I was there, I think Velobe has more up-to-date information than I have. Yeah, so what scale are we talking about? So Yahoo works at a tremendously huge scale. And we have tens of thousands of VMs. We have tens of thousands of OpenStack bare metal nodes. And we have 30 plus clusters in six regions globally. We have throughout the globe. We have different clusters. And we have across different regions. And along with that, we have tens of thousands of non-OpenStack bare metal, which we eventually plan to move to OpenStack and make it managed by OpenStack. And considering the traffic at which the traffic day in and day out, sometimes it is very consistent. But sometimes, let's say you have a football game or a baseball game, there might be spikes in the traffic. So serving requests for that huge web traffic is immense. And then as you can see in the scale slide, we have those many number of nodes to manage. So let's set a little bit of expectations on what people want out of a scheduler, because it sort of varies depending on who you're talking to. For a user, they want a fast experience. They want to boot quickly. They don't necessarily need to know where they're going, but they don't want to have a failure. They want to have a quick time to fail. They want to see that their instance has booted on a resource. Whether it's an optimal choice for that resource, they may not be too concerned about it. Of course, then there's an administrator case here where they also want it to boot quickly because they may have various needs that need to be satisfied by the instance that it works at scale. That's definitely important for Yahoo. Administrators need to know that this thing is going to work for not just one instance, but for many instances. It's also, of course, for their case, they want to make sure they configure it to match their layout, their topology, basically, which means that if they have, say, a rack that has certain restrictions on it, maybe it has GPUs and another rack doesn't have GPUs, they want to have the ability to segregate somehow of various concepts how to do that. And they want to make sure that those instances are used for where they're needed and there's a chargeback system or whatever connected into that to make sure that those higher cost instances are used effectively. Of course, then the developer, which is probably most people in this room, they want to have as many features as possible in a way, but they also want to have the boot quickly. They also want to have the accurate decisions. They want to have a lot of the same things the other two users want, but with a little bit more concern under the how of it and making sure that it's somewhat optimal, how optimal it will be is varies depending on implementation. So we're going to go into a little bit about what Nova does here, which it may not be known to everybody, it may be known to some people in the room, but it's an interesting little overview you can see here where the user starts to request how it goes into one of the internal systems of Nova. After the API layer, it goes sort of more into internal systems inside Nova. If you're familiar with these, you can sort of zone out right now, but anyway, there's a conductor process that will actually take over the request fulfillment, basically, and that will connect into the scheduler process. That will then get a response back to the conductor here. The conductor does various other things inside Nova, and then it will eventually go to a compute, which is typically a hypervisor. You'll see that reference used here. Just think of compute as hypervisor, typically where KVM is launching VMs or LiveVirt, and so then there will be some code here that will run, and then that will potentially reject the request or may not reject, depending on what resources available. So there's this loop between six and five, or five and six here, that will try to handle not enough resources being actually available. So let's go into a little bit how that happens. Do you want to go over this one? Yeah, sure, great. So as we spoke about the expectation, so every one of us, which is here, who is here goes through those expectations, or those sort of set of expectations day in and day out, may you be user, administrator, or developer, or any person. So resource usage tracking going more depth into it. So resources, what are resources? First of all, resources are, depending on what project you're using, it is, so for Nova, the resources are CPU memory disk, for Cinder, it might be volumes and snapshots. So in case of, let's say, in VM instance provisioning, first of all, if you see here, request number three, request goes to the scheduler, and scheduler has a set of host filters and wares, and it will, first of all, grab the list of all the inventory that is there, and suitable inventory it can find from the database, and go through the filters and wares, and then evaluate what host is suitable for me to boot this particular instance. And then once it has chosen that, it will do, returns the selected host, the fourth step. Then fifth step is, it will hand over to the conductor, and the conductor will talk to, basically, talk to the compute and mention about the selected compute, and the compute will eventually do the resource claiming process. That is, even though the scheduler has said that, I will consume, let's say, depending on your flavor, you want to create two gigs of, you want to consume two gigs of RAM, and 20 gigs of hard disk, or disk, and then two VCPs, hypervisor on hypervisor, compute one, compute process is the one who will be actually claiming those resources, and making sure that those resources are used from the hypervisor. So, Josh has previously covered the rescheduling part. So rescheduling, first of all, there is a retry filter. So rescheduling or retrying happens, performs well in a low load and low utilization kind of an environment where, let's say, first of all, you picked up a host, host one, and you went ahead and scheduled, tried, went to the compute, and the compute tried to spin up an instance, but the resource might not, the resources might not be present there, because there are multiple requests coming in, and they might be consuming the resources there. So what happens in that case, there is a, this six step happens that reschedule after claim resource failed, or other failures, that is, compute bails out that, okay, I don't have enough resources for whatever you're scheduled for, and let me pass back the call to the conductor, and let the conductor schedule it again, and retry the process again, and try to pick up a different host, which might be able to satisfy all the constraints that are specified for this particular request. So yeah, going ahead, so I think filters and rears. So the whole process of how this works, at least in the conductor or the scheduler part, is sort of interesting from a perspective of how does that actually operate. It's documented fairly well on the internet, but we can go through a little bit here. There's these filters that get this host list. They reduce it down by a certain set of conditions basically, and they then, they perform a little waiting on the output of that, and then that becomes the target host that will be selected, and then ask the boot of VM, and then it may fail due to what Velobe was just describing. Some of the important filters, we can show in the next one, they're sort of in different categories. Yahoo itself and GoDaddy, some people you can turn on various ones of these or turn them off, depending on how you actually want to operate your cloud. And with the typical ones that you would see are the resource filters. Those ones limit based on some kind of a restriction of they say cores that the hypervisor has. You don't want to overload it with hundreds of VMs when you can only have like four, or that's where you have flexibility in deciding how high you go for that number of how much do you overallocate. Same with RAM, this filter, you have various other filters that sort of segregate based on how your topology of your cloud is laid out. Maybe you have availability zones and you only want a boot request for availability zone with high numbers, GPUs in it to go to that availability zone. You can do image isolation, so I think this is used for windows as well. If you want to run windows in a certain subsection of your environment, you can do that via this method.  Affinity filters are especially interesting, but they're a little bit more of an advanced use case in that depending on how you want to enable your users to specify this kind of concept. One of the typical examples I think is you don't want to co-host like a web server along with its database. You want to have them segregated by different hosts. Some maybe higher segregation than that. Maybe you don't even want them on the same rack or the same power unit. So you can establish these kind of concepts with these affinity filters. How you sort of structure it is sort of specific on how you structure your cloud and how you turn on these filters, and it's complicated. More complicated in my opinion than it should be, but that's probably a whole different topic. What other ones there are? There are how many instances you want to boot on, some image properties. A lot of areas are very specific capabilities and matching capabilities you can do with these filters. So let's go into a little bit about, a little bit lower level on what actually happens here. So as Fulobu was saying, there's these request objects. This is the incoming request and there's another information maintained inside Nova. There's this thing called this host object host state. What happens during the request for a instance is that there will be a recall out to this get all, get these filters hosts, which will call out to get all the hosts. So in the VM case, that is a select call from the database to get the hosts. There's some other logic in Python that does other things on top of that. So it's not a purely a database call. And then it will activate these filters in order, whatever the config file specifies, and then it will select a host, do some more database interactions at that time, and then eventually send a call out to the hypervisor. So it's all this loop happens one at a time. And like in this slide, it is like all the time the scheduler will check, have I placed all the instance? If not, this loop will continue. So if you can see it is more of a streamlined approach that you select one host at a time and then till all the hosts have been placed, this process keeps on going all the time. So yeah, so now we will look at how the Ironic or the bare metal provisioning happens because this is also important. So in case of Ironic, we again this two set of inputs are request and the Ironic hosted. So again, Ironic, so this is what we have kind of implemented internally. And then this is Ironic hosted. I have Pranesh here who was one of the main developers who worked on it. And so Ironic hosted is constructed by calling to Ironic API, which basically talks to Ironic conductor and goes to Ironic DB and fetches all the information about the host which are relevant at this particular moment. And the information gets passed back to the Ironic host. The Ironic hosted has, via Ironic API gets passed to the NOAA world which is seen in blue on the left side, right? So whatever is in orange is the Ironic world, whereas on blue left is the NOAA API world or the NOAA side of it and the scheduler part of it. So request and Ironic hosted are passed to the filtered host. So first of all, we ask for get me n filtered host and then the filter scheduler runs, which in the sixth step, we get the n weighted host. So in the previous step, we saw that we just get one weighted host at a time, but in this case, rather than trying this retrial loop and we wanted to boot multiple VMs or multiple instances, bare metal instances at the same time. And we didn't want to have this failure mode where if we didn't select a proper node, go into the retrial loop again and again. So we had this claims node where we claim for m nodes where m is less than n. So let's say we got 10 nodes, but we claim for four of them. So at any instance, we will claim for four. So that call goes again to the Ironic API that goes to Ironic conductor and fetches, puts a claim on those m nodes from the set of n nodes and then it returns a valid claim UID and that gets, so the 10th step is claimed or selected nodes and all the claimed or selected nodes gets passed to the NOAA compute and then NOAA compute will eventually do all the, talk to Ironic and Ironic will proceed ahead with all the deployment and making sure the node comes up. So the important thing to note here is there is no in-memory update of the host state information and most of the information is directly fetched from the ultimate source of truth, which in this case is the Ironic DB and there have been various talks in the Mitaka release regarding Ironic having a separate scheduler or NOAA maintaining, NOAA using the NOAA scheduler. So we took this approach and yeah, so. So just a note on that is that this is somewhat a Yahoo customized thing that was done here. Yeah, and just to mention that the spec is still under discussion for the claims thing in Ironic and this is more of a Yahoo version of it. Yeah, just to make sure that people are aware. So there is ongoing work just to keep in touch with the community about how this is going and there is work going to change it to a little bit of a similar model where they have this claim concept to avoid some of the races that happen in the typical VM case. So some of those, just to go over what some of those race conditions are. Some of them are somewhat obvious from the previous talks here and slides but some of them are basically when you have a multi-threaded request going on and you have many different messages passing through your system, you have the simultaneous work that happens in the schedule where that cache that it maintains may not be up to date. So this is where the bad decisions can happen and that trigger the retry which is typically fine under low load or you're not trying to highly optimize your cloud where that retry may happen more often. I think that hasn't been triggered as often as it could be for most people because they keep their cloud resource issues at maybe a 50% level, I can't exactly say, but if you don't try to run highly tightly packed, you don't necessarily see all the amount of retries. So that's where it goes into this high load situation. The other one that's interesting to think about is the mutual execution. When these filters are ran, they may be using out-of-date information. So say you have the filters that are running on that checking the RAM usage. If another request is at the same time being processed that has also checking the RAM usage of a hypervisor, they both may say that that hypervisor has enough information free or enough RAM free, but when one of them eventually will have reached a decision that it wasn't actually true. So that's where the retry stuff comes into play, but if there's a way to make that kind of process happen more upfront, I think it's a better sort of experience for developers, users. Yeah, and it's a classic race condition kind of a thing that you have a same state and multiple threads trying to access the same structure and it's a classical race condition. So yeah, scheduling at scale. So this is the expectation on the left side that everything, if it is working at 200 nodes or 500 nodes, will work at 1000, 10s of 1000s of node. But in reality, when you try to scale beyond 1000, it just blows up. So the volubilism performance test, whether this shows some interesting stuff, we can talk about that. I also want to mention, I guess I'll mention it afterwards, but there's some other work, like when Yahoo was trying to get to lots of bare metal, I think there were some interesting stuff that happened as well. When you have lots and lots of instances, you start to see a lot of interesting sort of performance kind of areas happen. I think one of them was along with a resource tracker, other ones, we can talk, after he goes over this, we'll go into a little bit more detail, but there's a lot of interesting stuff that comes out of what we have here for these performance tests. Yeah, so let's test the scheduler. So performance test, so first of all, I'll go through the VM cases, the VM instances and later we'll cover the bare metal cases. So what we saw as part of our performance test was, so this invent, we had like 500 node inventory and then we had one filter scheduler for now, like let's start with one filter scheduler and let's see if one provides good throughput, then we can scale it to multiple and get better throughput, but with one filter scheduler, 500 nodes and 50 concurrent boots, what we saw was throughput of 2.8 and request per second, which is really not what we expect from the scheduler, then increase the number of nodes to 1000 nodes and kept the concurrency at the same level, that is 50 concurrent boots, same configuration, one filter scheduler, you just see 1.67 requests per second, which is again like it's degrading and not, it's not even staying consistent, not increasing but degrading. So if we analyze further and see that how much NOAA scheduler is costing because when you try to schedule an instance, there are a whole lot of different processes from NOAA that get involved. First of all, NOAA API receives the request, then passes on to conductor, then goes to scheduler, scheduler returns to conductor and passes on to compute and in between there is this messaging layer as well, which is a kind of glue between everything, every service and talking to each of them. So if we slice it out, the time spent in each of the different services, we see that NOAA scheduler is consuming almost 68 to 75% of the overall schedule process for 500 nodes and it takes, NOAA scheduler takes 85 to 95% of overall schedule process for 1000 nodes. So the question arises, okay, why NOAA scheduler is taking so much amount of time? What is it doing and why are this are moving so quickly? So if and in performance, it's like if you solve the biggest bottleneck at first, your system tries to improve and can be high performance. So first of all, call to get all host rates, get the host rates, the filter scheduler does this as we saw in the previous slide, cost about 88 to 95% of the cost. In the scheduler also, this is again further specification of that, that it costs in the scheduler also 88 to 90% is cost by get all host state. Majorly accesses DB updates the in-memory cache, which is the host state cache that Josh explained in previous slide. So the bottleneck is the cache refresh step. So this cache refreshing step is basically a two-step process. So even though I have a point here, the database calls are biggest bottleneck during scheduling. So the cache refreshing step, let me elaborate more on that. So first of all, what it does is it tries to pull the information, select the information for all the valid host in my inventory. And after that is done, once it tries to construct the in-memory host state objects and when the scheduler filtering happens, it tries to consume resources from that in-memory request, in-memory data structure that is there. And, but the actual claim of the resources happens only at the compute, which will basically update the compute node stable, right? But in case of scheduler, to keep track of what's going on in the system, it will keep track of that by updating the host state map or the data structure that it is aware of. And in updating, fetching the details and then keeping everything in sync, it just spends a lot of time. And another point was that this is where we saw, and even we had to do some work for the bare-metal stuff at Yahoo when we were integrating with our legacy system. Actually, when you have one, because we were actually trying to import lots and lots of machines into, it's not necessarily ironic at that point. That was, this was about a year ago, a little before we were big into ironic. But this would be a major performance step when it would try to update a cache of about 10,000 nodes periodically or during a request that we would sort of see, ooh, this is not responding as quickly as we expected. You sort of start to see these kind of, when I think we even went to 10,000 or higher, but when you start to try to do these kind of operations, that this step was especially problematic. I think we had to actually disable some of this refreshing step to actually try to optimize toward more of the larger scale. Wasn't exactly what I think the best practice that we wanted to follow, but it was what we had to do for trying to get more inventory into OpenSec. I think ironic is taking a little different approach for this, but we'll see where that goes. Yeah, that's a really good point to mention. So yeah, so next is challenges, scheduling virtual machines. So with filter scheduler, so as we saw in previous slide that scheduler cache implementation is, so there's a bottleneck in cache refreshing step. So time consuming database block during every decision making process and that consumes a whole lot of time. And with filter scheduler, you are grabbing the host state every time. So you might be thinking that, okay, why don't we cache that and why don't we use that cache information every now and then? So the community also thought about it and they came up with this idea of caching scheduler. So, but this caching scheduler is in its very naive state and it's not fully functional from whatever we tried. We felt that it's in a very naive implementation. So unsuitable for rapidly changing compute node resources refresh after every 60 seconds. So if you are thinking of clusters beyond 1000 nodes, so not most of the OpenSec deployment at this moment will be till 1000 node, but eventually they will want to go beyond that. And if you have rapidly changing compute node resources and the caching scheduler refreshes after every 60 seconds, which doesn't give a consistent view of resources all the time and running multiple caching scheduler. So again, like if you can't get a consistent view at a particular instance running multiple caching scheduler will only increase your problem rather than helping you solve that. So this approach didn't help or won't help. So next. So caching challenges again scheduling virtual machine instances. So challenges in Juneau, if any of you are in Juneau. So in Juneau node selection time is directly proportional to the number of inventory you have. So let's say you have 100 nodes in your inventory and it takes 10 seconds to select and for the scheduling process, if you upgrade to or move to 1000 nodes you will take 100 seconds. If you move to 10,000 nodes it will take more than that. So it is directly proportional. And so that's why in the slide we have like time complexity of this is polynomial. Like it will keep on increasing as you increase more number of nodes in your inventory. So boot request times out depending on the RPC timeout. So RPC timeout in case of VMs is mostly 180 seconds. So doing this in the shorter period of time if you want to increase more nodes is not feasible and the boot request might timeout. And as we saw in the expectation slide that the user will see that eventually he or she waited for so long and eventually he or she sees a failure because of timeout error or something that you don't want the users to see. So the solution that we implemented was we had a cache for aggregate to hosted data and this information, hosted doesn't have information about aggregates or aggregate information. So we created this, we had this cache and as a result of which we were able to do a quick lookup and filter ordering also matters. So how you structure your filter ordering is very important. So I have an example here. So let's say you have aggregate image properties isolation. This filter is mostly used to also understand boot different flavors like Windows, VM or different other things. So you want to put the filter which will isolate maximum amount of host in the front. So image isolation properties will isolate most of the host then the availability zone filter pick only let's say GPU specific availability zone and so on. So filtering order is also important. So problems are at scale. So some of the issues we hit with the ironic or well before ironic and as well as during ironic we're still working through or Yahoo is working through is there's this sizes of the worker pool that ironic has that I think what was happening was that they were getting overloaded and we had to figure out how many of these, how do we associate the number of requests that we want to boot for a certain time? How do we connect it to the number of workers that the ironic pool has? That was a tweaked I think it was basically increased over the default I'm not off the top and I had to show how many but there was a mapping that we had to figure out like for this many requests based on what we're testing, how many ironic conductors do we need to have? This one the next second one is sort of well known but is being worked on as well. The Neutron server has to also be able to handle the same number of requests that are sort of are going into ironic or Neutronova. So that when it needs to set up a network it needs to respond to a network call that you have to have a similar increase to the conductor pool. You have to similarly increase the number of Neutron servers or workers that it has, as well as the pool size for the database pool size. This is the number of connections that are allowed to go to the database. That required work on how to figure out what a good number was for that. This one the next one is sort of the event lit kind of issue. Most people are moving toward a model where they use mod WSGI which sort of avoids the number of or the limitations that event lit has when it comes to running WSGI applications. The other way to run that one is the worker concept. So you can either put in an API typically and you can either bind it or connect it to an Nginx or Apache or you can use the inbuilt kind of concepts where you have many different workers that the API server will run. So I'm pretty sure that we tried both approaches and we're moving, at least Yahoo was when I was there we're moving toward a mod WSGI approach for various reasons. We're also very familiar with Apache at Yahoo so that also helps. So other stuff I think this is sort of, this is a little bit of not ironic but it's sort of general stuff that we hit. When I was talking about the resource tracker there's this sort of piece in Nova updates the cache that has all the resources that has information about all the resources in the cloud. This one especially was problematic because it starts up on Nova when Nova compute is booting up or starting up as a freshly on a new instance or hypervisor, it will actually grab a lot of the information from the database or from ironic and load it into its own memory which took actually quite a long time because it has to populate a bunch of objects, work, do some database calls and from what I understood I didn't experience this myself but there was cases where it would take an hour or many, many minutes more than it should to actually populate this information and then when you're actually doing a scheduling request it has to do similar kind of computations that cause these kind of delays in processing, the delays in booting. That's where we sort of took out the resource tracker or took out some of that functionality to try to make it so it would actually be quicker. We started working around this claims API here that would avoid having to actually access and update that resource information by just having, it's not necessarily a lock on the instance but when we do a scheduling request it would actually get the information from ironic and then do some filtering and then instead of waiting for some period in the future to make a actual request to claim that resource we would instantly kind of claim that resources as soon as we could so that that would minimize the possibility of race conditions where somebody else would have to claim the same instance so sort of delaying the feedback loop doesn't actually turn out to be that beneficial so shorten that kind of period between when you believe your resource is good to be used to when it can actually be used and we did that via the claims API and ironic is working on some work to actually make that a little more official. I forget the name of it, it's called claims or claims in scheduling or something like that. Claims API. So yeah, then this other stuff you wanna go through these? Sure, yeah so there was a periodic power check that takes almost 60 seconds if IPMI is failing and we added, like I think there's a plan to go ahead with futurists so I have the creator of futurist here and then run the jobs in parallel and so looking beyond so what plans, what do we want to? So some thoughts on this one there was a bunch of work ongoing in various projects too how do we sort of make this scheduling problem better across projects? So those previous slides I'll talk to a little bit about NOVA, how we did the scheduling, how there's a piece of NOVA that's doing the work on picking an instance but when you started getting to question what about volume scheduling or what if I wanna pick a stuff or maybe not stuff is the best example but what if I wanna pick a rack that has some storage resource over some other rack, right? So a lot of these products have similar kind of constraints on where resources can go maybe an ideal world they don't because if you have something that's stuff that's universal everywhere maybe it's not as important but there's these fundamental questions and maybe we can make better decisions about scheduling if we're somewhat aware of where all the resources in the cloud are in a way it's topology kind of question and how do we sort of move away from a model of each project knows where its resources is because then it will schedule on them but it's hard to move out of this local optimum you could call it that. Yeah and the idea is to have a holistic view of how the cloud is organized and then make decisions based of that rather than every project having a separate scheduler in itself if there's a lot of duplication and then eventually end up being having a common model where everyone can use that model and if have a holistic view of all the resources and be decision of that. Yeah so there's this spec that I started I don't know maybe three or four months ago that's called a super scheduler because it sounded cool but it's also about how do we start forming this kind of ideas around how do we move from a model where we can have a more global view but also not drastically affect each project and each project definitely doesn't want to like take away I don't want to take away any of its capabilities but how do we move to having the ability to do that with also having the local ability so there's got to be a middle ground between purely a project making a decision about its scheduling decisions and having a larger kind of view on the whole system. There's ongoing work on this one if people are want to contribute and it's free to jump in. There's awesome stuff I believe in NOVA about resource pools and resource providers and it's ongoing there so there's various works on continuing on that so there's lots of areas in here I think there's a lot of potential especially when you start to bring in like new kind of resources like containers or lots of different network concepts that are probably I can't even think of but there's lots there that can also be scheduled so it starts just to my perspective it starts to feel that there has to be some kind of more organized effort in this area which is why that's that scheduling expect is also cross-project and people are willing to jump in and help out and try to see where we can push this system to its limits and make it better. Yeah so that's what like local making decisions locally we call it local optimum it's more of a greedy approach that whatever you see locally you consume it and proceed ahead whereas what we would like to have is like global optimum which is like considering all the possibilities and then making the best or optimal decision out of it. Yep. So feel the jump in and feel the ask questions and thank you guys for coming and let's do it we can do any Q&A or you can meet us afterwards is fine too. Yeah. It might be hard to do Q&A here. Yeah. We'll ask questions if you're free. Yeah. I have a question. So around kind of some of the schedule and you did performance tests. Mm-hmm. Sure. Was I, I guess targeted towards single, singular API servers and single conductors and single schedulers and follow up would be did you kind of do any performance tests where you had multiple or distributed schedulers or in conductors running at the same time? So that's that's a to-do thing that I plan to do next like have multiple schedulers and run multiple workloads. So the inventory that was shown here I had I have some programs where I fake the inventories and running multiple schedulers both for ironic as well as VMs is something I'm looking forward to and right now I don't have any data but I would like I'd be more than interested interested to share with you if whenever I'm done with it. Cool. Sure. A couple of questions. Do you think in the interim we should take a look at databases and the MySQL and see if there's an optimization that we need to do? And then in terms of multiple schedulers is there any thought into having a scheduler per tenant? So we can say you guys compete against yourselves because you're a service provider to our internal organization. We have multiple, you know different groups with different demands. We don't mind if they compete against each other. It's an interesting idea. So the first question I think the database question, yeah I think there's obvious optimizations there. Some of the thoughts that like when I was a Yahoo when we were starting to think about this was the filter scheduling stuff really you can translate most of the stuff that's in there into database like actual database queries. Most of the filters are just like user land, Python filtering that you could without with some of those are difficult some of the filters are somewhat difficult but most of them can be just like actually just poured it into a SQL kind of statement and that would probably help out in a lot of the database optimizations that easy kind of things to do I think. As for the second question I haven't, I didn't, I didn't haven't heard about that. I haven't tried it but it may, maybe it's possible. Like multiple schedulers you could probably shard some way to do it. Shard per tenant and then. Yeah, but in that case like each tenant will have an isolation of resources that it can see and the scheduler that you run for that particular tenant or that particular project will just manage as Josh is saying a sharded approach where you just have limited set of resources but then again you might have like if you want to share multiple resources how do you do that? And all those things. So it basically separates out the whole logic of multi-tenancy and having things at a one place and then having a single scheduler to manage all the resources in the cloud. Sure. I think I'm, how can scheduling interact with reallocation of resources which might allow you to go and move from this local optima to a global optima over time? So you're thinking about dynamic reallocation? Exactly, by live migration that sort of thing. So, so first of all, so retry mechanism is one of the things where you can know where if the first request didn't went through you can retrend, schedule it on other nodes. But then for that, I think you will also need to have some historical information of where the instance has been moved to to take the scheduling, to take that into account and let's say that node, let's say fault happens or something and that host crashes and then you had to move your VM or something then you need to have an information of that kind of. I think I don't want you to necessarily build that stuff. I'm just kind of curious how we could go and reuse some of the scheduling logic that you currently have in terms of filtering and whatnot so that someone who wants to do a further optimization because they've had these VMs running over time, these instances running over time actually have more knowledge about where they should be. I mean, it's possible. I mean, I don't think the current schedule or a lot of it has much insight into that. It's definitely something that can be done. Yeah, so that is. I mean, we do that sort of thing now but we probably could go and benefit from interaction with the scheduler. Yeah, so definitely something like utilization-based stuff or utilization-based scheduling, depending on how much is utilized on a particular host, you get those information, that data and then make more better decisions at the scheduler level that this has been consumed, this has not been consumed and let me schedule at something, some node which is not more consumed and make decisions better. Cool. I guess this is for further discussion with you guys. Thanks. Next up. Just a small question. You mentioned containers, what are the challenges over there? Yes, so... Oh, I'll have to come back six months on that. I'll have to come back to that one in six months. We'll see. I'll have another slide in six months. So right now, Magnum just uses whatever scheduling mechanism NOAA provides and whatever host is chosen, it just creates container on that particular VM or VM. But right now, as he's saying, there's more to come. So let's hope for this. There's a lot of work in progress in that, so I think I'll have to wait. It's gonna have to wait. It's literally to say too much on that, really. Because there's so many different scheduling concepts in different projects that are not even NOVA. Yeah. Right, so six months. Thanks. Sure. See you. Thank you. All right, thank you.


I saw on CNN the other day that they voted President Zelensky of Ukraine, their person of the year. And it got me thinking, I think we should all have a person of the year. Who's yours?  Who has been there for you this year? Who has shown up for you constantly this year in a way that perhaps others haven't? Who is a standout person in your life this year? Why don't you tell them, text them, mail them, tell them to their face. You are my person of the year. That'd be a good thing to go viral, wouldn't it? Of you guys, thanks for being here.


Before recognizing Dr. Paul for his statement, I want to note that this may be his last committee meeting with the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Throughout his time in office, Dr. Paul has been a consistent and strong advocate for sound monetary policy. His leadership on the committee, especially during these hearings when we've had the Federal Reserve chairman appear before us, have certainly made the hearings more interesting and provided several memorable YouTube moments. Mr. Chairman, just to say that having served a long time with Ron Paul, with whom I agree on a number of issues, I am very pleased that I was able to serve one term with him as chairman because there were times during our joint service when, despite his seniority, I thought he'd never get to it. So I'm glad that he finally achieved that chairmanship that he should have had long ago. Thank you. Your comments, Chairman, and the ranking member. But I am delighted to be here today, but I just want to refresh a few people's memory. I was first elected to Congress in 1976 in April in a special election, and the biggest bill on docket at that time was the revamping of the IMF. There was a major crisis going on from the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement, and they had to rewrite the laws. They wanted to conform the laws with what they had been doing for five years, and that was a major piece of legislation. But it was only a consequence of what was predicted in 1945, because when 1945 established the Bretton Woods, it was predicted by the free market economists. It wouldn't work. It would fail. And this whole idea that they could regulate exchange rates and deal with a balance of payments, it totally failed. And so they had to come up with something new in 1971, 1976 is that transition period. And those same economists at that time said this was an unworkable system too, and it would lead to a major crisis of too much debt, too much malinvestment. It would be worldwide, it would be worse than anything, because it would be based on the fiat dollar globally, and that many of the problems that we have domestically would be worldwide. And that certainly has been confirmed with the crisis that we're in and has not been resolved yet. We're still floundering around and we still have a long way to go. I have over the years obviously been critical of what goes on on monetary policy, but it hasn't been so much the chairman of the Federal Reserve, whether it was Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan or the current chairman. It's always been the system. I think they have a job that they can't do because it's an unmanageable job and it's a fallacy. It's a flawed system and therefore we shouldn't expect good results and generally we are not getting results. Policies never change. We stay the same thing, no matter what crisis is, we still do more of the same. If spending and debt was the problem, spending more and in greater debt and have the Fed just buy more debt doesn't seem to help at all. And here we are doing the same thing. We don't talk about the work ethic and true productions and true savings and why this excessive debt is so bad for us. We talk about solving a worldwide problem of insolvency of nations including our own by just printing money, creating credit. And now the Fed in the last four years tripled the monetary base and it has a trillion dollars more money sitting there. The banks are sitting with trillions of dollars and just the creation of money doesn't restore the confidence that is necessary. Until we get to the bottom of this and restore the confidence, I don't think we're going to see economic growth. This whole idea that you have the job of managing money and we can't even define the dollar. Nobody has a definition of the dollar. It's an impossible task. So I have hoped in the past to try to contribute to the discussion on monetary policy, the business cycle and why it benefits the rich over the poor. And so far my views have not prevailed. But I've appreciated the opportunity and I appreciate this opportunity to have served on the bank committee. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Paul. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, is recognized for three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank Chairman Bernanke for appearing at today's hearing. Let me also publicly thank our Chairman, Dr. Paul, for his honorable service in Congress and to his country. Dr. Paul, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question prepared, but I think I better follow up on the question you asked Chairman Bernanke dealing with the audit of the Fed. Because when the Fed talks about independence, what they're really talking about is secrecy, not transparency. And it's the secrecy that I don't like and that we have a right to know about. What the GAO cannot audit, and I believe it would be the position of the chairman, is it cannot audit monetary policy and you express yourself on monetary policy. But it would not be able to look at agreements and operations with foreign central banks and governments and other banks or transactions made under direction of the FOMC. Discussions or communications between the board and the Federal Reserve system related to all those items. So it really, it's really not an audit without this. It's still secrecy. And why this is important is because of what happened four years ago. It's estimated that the amount of money that went in and out of the Fed for the bailing out overseas was $15 trillion. How did we ever get into this situation where Congress has nothing to say about trillions and trillions of dollars of bailing out certain banks and governments through these currency swaps? And the chairman has publicly announced that he's available. There's a crisis going on in Europe. Part of this dollar crisis going on that's been building, it's unique to the history of the world and monetary policy. And we stand ready. Who stands ready? The American taxpayer because we're just going to print up the money. As long as they take our dollars, we'll print the money and we'll bail them all out and we're going to destroy the middle class. The middle class is shrinking. The banks get richer. The middle class gets shrink. They shrink. They lose their houses. They lose their mortgages. This system is biased against the middle class and the poor. So I would say that this is, if we protect this amount of secrecy, it is not good policy and it's not good economics at all. It's very unfair. But my question is, Mr. Chairman, whose responsibility is it under the Constitution to manage monetary policy? Which branch of government has the absolute authority to manage monetary policy? The Congress has the authority and it's delegated to the Federal Reserve. That's a policy decision that you made. Yeah, but they can't transfer authority. You can't amend the Constitution by just saying we're going to create some secret group of individuals and banks. That's amending the Constitution. You can't do that. And all of a sudden allow this to exist in secrecy. And whose responsibility is it for oversight? Which branch of government has the right of oversight? Congress has the right of oversight and we certainly fully accept that and we fully accept the need for transparency and accountability. But it is a well-established fact that an independent central bank will provide better outcomes. If you want to go, there's no constitutional reason why Congress couldn't just take over monetary policy. If you want to do that, I guess that's your right to do it. But I'm advising you that it wouldn't be very good from an economic policy point of view. Yeah, but if it's allowed to be done in secret, this is the reason why I want to work within the system. What I want to say is Congress ought to get a backbone. They ought to say we deserve to know, we have a right to know, we have an obligation to know, because we have an obligation to defend our currency. It's the destruction of the currency that destroys the middle class. There is a principle in pre-market banking that says if you destroy the value of currency through inflation, you transfer the wealth of the middle class and it gravitates to the very wealthy. The bankers, the government, the politicians, they all love this. It is the fact that the Federal Reserve is the facilitator, but you couldn't have big government. If everybody loves big government, love the Fed, because they can finance the wars and all the welfare you want, but it doesn't work. It eventually ends up in a crisis, and it's a solvency crisis, and it can't be solved by printing a whole lot of money. So I think the very first step is transparency, and for us to know, we have a right to know, and you may be correct in your assumption, at least I'm sure you believe this, but maybe I should be talking to the Congress that we should stand up and say yes, we demand to know. Trillions and trillions of dollars being printed out of thin air and bailing out their friends, they stand ready to do it. The crisis is just as far as I'm concerned. My opinion is it's in the early stages. It's far from over. We're in deep doldrums, and we never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing. Commerce keeps spending the money. Welfare expands exponentially. Wars never end. In deficits, it don't matter. And when it comes to cutting spending, Republicans and Democrats, they get together and say, oh no, we can't really cut, and if we do cut, we just cut proposed increases. It's in the regular order. Use the in there. Use the in there. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. And facilitate it all. Thank you, Dr. Fowle. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Bernanke, thank you for being here. I want to say two of my worst votes in 18 years, the Iraq war. We didn't have to go to Iraq. And the second, the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And if I was not going to yield my time, I would ask you about reinstating Glass-Steagall. I think I will write your letter with that question, sir. But at this time, because he's one of my dearest friends, I supported him for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States. I yield my time to Dr. Ron Paul. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I wanted to make a very brief statement about our previous discussion about the audit, the Fed bill. That bill has nothing to do with transferring who does monetary policy. This was, it's strictly a transparency bill. Monetary policy reform, I believe, will come, but that's another subject. This is just to know more about what the Federal Reserve is doing. Mr. Chairman, one of your key points that you've made through your academic career as well as being a defendant has been the need to prevent deflation. Would you agree with that? That is generally yes, sir. Right. And that you argue that the Depression was prolonged by the Federal Reserve not being able to reinflate. So in that sense, I think you really have achieved, you've had the chance, you were put in a situation that you alone didn't create. As far as I'm concerned, the system created and other managers helped create this. And there was this, what I see as a natural tendency to deflate and liquidate and clear the market and under your philosophy, you say, we can't allow this to happen. We have to prevent it. And I would say you've done a pretty good job. The monetary base has been tripled and in the last 12 months, like M1 has grown about 16%, M2 at over 9%. So it seems to be like a monetary system, the monetary numbers are still growing. But the pricing houses, everybody knows there's a bubble. I like to believe that the free market economists knew about it and predicted it. Others did not. But the prices soared up. Everybody knows there was a bubble and then they collapsed. The prices of houses collapsed. Do you call that deflation? No. Deflation is prices of current goods and services. So inflation doesn't capture house prices. It includes the house of the rental. Okay. And I think one of the problems, even getting a full-fledged discussion out is sometimes a definition of words about what inflation and deflation means because as far as I'm concerned, deflation is when the money supply shrinks and inflation is when the money supply expands. But just about everybody in the country, especially the financial markets and the way I think the conventional use of inflation is the CPI. And I think it's, you know, a lousy measurement because if it's the money supply increase, if prices going down, of houses is not deflation, I wonder why it is that inflation is measured by the CPI going up and the money supply going up. Our argument is that once you distort interest rates and increase the supply of money, you end up with this gross distortion that is demanding some correction. So I've worked on this for years and we're not going to solve it today. The definitions would be much better if prices of houses going down is not deflation and the CPI going up shouldn't be inflation. But we've had trouble five years. The monetary system, you say this is not all and all, you can't solve every problem with monetary system and monetary policy. We've had this for five years and we're still in a mess. Is there ever a time, let's say we go five more years and we have the same problems but much worse, is there ever a time you might say, I have to reassess my philosophy on monetary policy or do you think it'll be the same no matter what kind of crisis? Can you foresee any kind of problem that we would have that you would reassess your assumptions? I can't conjecture what specifically, but of course, yeah, I'm evidence-based. I look at see what happens and try to draw conclusions from that. Certainly. The definitions, obviously, to me are very, very important and if we don't come to this conclusion and we use these terms, inflation demands corrections and the market wants to correct. So this is why we believe that we're going to have perpetual doldrums and finally have a big one. Do you consider this recession that we're facing today something that is significantly different since 1945? Much worse and different in any way? Yes, because of the financial crisis, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Paul. That was a double dose you got. That was pleasantly unexpected, I guess.