7 ms·
Where I work compliance is job #1. That doesn't prevent us from thinking about performance. GTFO with this nonsense.
by ubu7737 7y ago
Where I work compliance is job #1.
That doesn't prevent us from thinking about performance. GTFO with this nonsense.
- dang 7y agoYour comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines, and getting worse as they go along. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? Note the bit about curious conversation.
- ubu7737 7y agoNot clear. Edit: You want to be a moderator? Apply herein: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th... Just click on the big photograph and you'll be directed to the place where you can shut down conversation. Idiot. If you're curious then you should read and think.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoI'm not sure if you're aware, but dang is one of the Hacker News moderators in that article. Dang stands for DANiel Gackle.
- tracker1 7y agoThey started with a simple implementation where one node handles one request at a time... end to end. They used ECS for easy-button scaling. That's a perfectly reasonable approach for starting out. I would have probably pushed for a shift in orchestration to kubernetes along with some tweaking as an initial uplift. Others would re-write the whole thing in another language. They chose to add a bit of complexity for multiple requests per node support. They all have their pluses and minuses, but in the end it doesn't mean the initial approach was bad, or their refactor wasn't pragmatic or practical. Dramatic rewrites to a codebase lead to instability and in practice fail as much as succeed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ubu7737 7y ago> Dramatic rewrites to a codebase Otherwise known as re-architecting?