204 karma · joined October 13, 2014
They have a great podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/eurodollar-university/... and routinely appear on finance podcasts to explain this.
Having seen what that model of development can do from an operational/security/agility/scalability/efficiency perspective, I think the comments on HN about serverless saying "it's just CGI" or that they could do something similar without vendor lockin are honestly laughably ignorant. If you haven't messed with Zappa (https://github.com/Miserlou/Zappa) or Serverless Framework (https://www.serverless.com/) at least a little you are missing out.
Also, optimising for queue length only makes any sense in the described scenario if all stalls are owned by a single entity.
I'm not even going to touch the "only add something to your todo list if you are going to do it immediately" stupidity.
The revisions show the real picture, and it is not pretty.
See https://alhambrapartners.com/2021/07/30/inflation-estimates-...
https://github.com/sinner-/ansible-freebsdvps/blob/master/ro...
Late 2015 I decided I wanted a "Chromebook" style user experience where I could have a repeatable build of the base OS that could be thrown away plus a backup system based around duplicity to restore my homedir. I had used preseed to deploy large fleets of Ubuntu boxes at work so it was a natural option. But I decided a few things: Firstly, I was sick of LTS 3.x kernel. Secondly, if 16.04 and all other distros were adopting systemd I may as well go to the source and use a RH based distro. Finally, that preseed wasn't as good as Kickstart used in RH based distros.
So I came up with https://github.com/sinner-/kickstart-fedora-workstation to provide repeatable builds of Fedora the way that I like it. I've been happily using it since then (across 2 versions of Fedora and a hard drive failure)! The .ks file will be updated for F26 this weekend as it just went GA today.
As someone who has been thinking a lot recently about SPARK/Ada and "free" formal verification, can anyone tell me how this language compares on that front? If I write a P program, do I get the ability to "prove" its correctness?
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2013-Octobe...
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2014-May...
:(
Look at the hoops that adversary resistance focused distros like SubgraphOS have to jump through just to mitigate the giant attack surface that X opens.
Until Wayland becomes the usable default standard, "Linux Desktop Security" is an anachronism.
Almost. With ZeroCloud (OpenStack Swift + ZeroVM + appropriate middleware), you should imagine Lambda+S3 in the same service! Your "function" executes much, much closer to the location of the data, it doesn't require "shipping" from the storage service to the compute service and back again. You can take in an object, perform a transform (e.g. text search, encryption, transcode, etc) and store the result as a new object.
If you think about it, it's kind of the future of large scale computing, immutable dataset + immutable compute, that can horizontally scale to huge numbers of nodes.
But they got bought by Rackspace (who originally open sourced Swift) in late 2013, and then their github account activity dropped to 0 by early 2015. Rackspace has probably one of the worlds largest Swift deployments, so maybe one day they will do some cool things with ZeroVM ala ZeroCloud but for now the forward movement of the project seems dead or at least proprietary :(
Other interesting implementations of the same concept include Joyents Manta, which is also open source and actually probably more flexible than ZeroCloud (you can SSH into your container).
If you are not verifying key fingerprints out of band, then you are potentially vulnerable to a malicious server MITMing new sessions.
If you want secure end-to-end messaging, verify keys out of band, do not solely trust a 3rd party for key exchange!
If you're on a Apple device you probably need to use VPN to specify an alternate DNS and either route your traffic through that VPN as well or just use it for DNS.
I'm talking about replication, not sharding though. If the data is actually lost then you have to bear the penalty of re-replicating it to match your replica count regardless, there's no magic wand here to do with "persistent storage". If the data isn't actually lost (e.g. due to CoreOS automagic reboots) then you absolutely should be putting the cluster into maintenance mode until the reboots are complete.
> As for Cinder, it's reliant on OpenStack APIs which (at least as of Juno) are reliant on things like RabbitMQ. We've seen a number of OpenStack failures due to RabbitMQ partitioning and split-brained scenarios.
Still pretty confused when you mention OpenStack. Cinder doesn't rely on OpenStack APIs per se, it provides an OpenStack API (for block storage). RabbitMQ clustering has longstanding issues with partitions which are mentioned explicitly in the documentation, nothing to do with OpenStack, everything to do with Erlang MNESIA DB. Any decent OpenStack team has learned by now to use singleton RabbitMQs with a master/slave configuration loadbalancer (i.e. haproxy) in front.
> We're also back to the disk-on-network problem again: SCSI backplane ---ethernet---> client will never be as fast as local disk.
Right. But wasn't the comment about persistent storage? You're never going to have persistent storage in your k8s cluster that magically avoids that problem, so not really sure what the point is here.
If your systems support software level replication (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MySQL, MongoDB all do) then why do you need persistent storage? You just need container scheduling anti-affinity and enough replicas.
You only need persistent storage for systems which don't support that replication. Ceph can certainly be deployed as performant for DB workloads.
You say "Cinder has the stench of OpenStack" but Cinder is just a Python based webapp which povides an API to arbitrary storage backends (Ceph RBD, iSCSI, NetApp ONTAP, whatever). How can it be "better now"? It doesn't provide storage on its own. If your ops team was using the default "proof of concept" LVM backend then I could see how you might get a bad impression but that just means your ops team doesn't know much about OpenStack.
Am I missing something obvious?
This is probably an unpopular opinion on HN, but let's face it, P2P protocols like bitcoin are relatively easy to disrupt for nation state actors, especially the US!
For a relatively small cost, the blockchain could be flooded with bogus junk to DoS. The bootstrap mechanism could easily be MITMd to netsplit new nodes. Those are just technological mechanisms off the top of my head, which assume a perfect hypothetical cryptocurrency with none of the teething problems that all of the actual cryptocurrencies have.
ISIS could come up with "Terrorcoin" (which is the underlying vague threat of the article) but without any mechanism to transfer those coins to a fungible real world currency, it's useless anyway.
Go home Newsweek, you're drunk.
They probably could have saved themselves a lot of pain by talking to some Ceph experts still working inside RedHat for architectural and other design decisions.
I agree with other poster who asked why do they even need a gigantic distributed fs and how that seems like a design miss.
OpenSSH behind VPN technology like IPsec or OpenVPN (with TLS auth) means that only authorised (in possession of valid signing key) clients see the open socket.
OpenSSH does have "SSH certificates", but using VPN technology allows you to secure multiple internal services including those that don't support any encryption natively.
All the internal services should never be exposed to the internet and only accept connections from signed packets using IPsec or OpenVPN with TLS auth.
Yes, this means more key management.
However, one self help book which I recently discovered and completely changed my life is "Rewire your brain" (ISBN: 0470487291) which offers explanations of many things from a neuroscience perspective and includes some practical anecdotes etc.
I would recommend it to essentially anyone, and all I could think while reading it was "why is this book not mandatory reading for all humans?".
FWIW.
FWIW, in the same vein as CloudFormation but for OpenStack, there is OpenStack HEAT which is, IMHO, quite good.
Pure speculation but perhaps the issue at hand is that Terraform is trying to act as a generic infrastructure provisioning tool across many IaaS offerings.