Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!
-
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is this like a theoretical smart-assery or a real suggestion?
Well, it's from @dangeRuss, so it's obviously
smartdumb-assery that he thinks is a real suggestion.Well, the first part is legitimately doable within some boundary, it's possible to adjust over time how your tastebuds process things.
But lemon in the tea? :helltothenothanks:
-
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is this like a theoretical smart-assery or a real suggestion?
Well, it's from @dangeRuss, so it's obviously
smartdumb-assery that he thinks is a real suggestion.It's not a bad suggestion. For some people it might be easier said than done though.
-
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@dangeRuss said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@PleegWat Milk, no, unless I'm making masala chai. Not because I don't like milk in my tea, but I'd have to wash my mug every time I make a cuppa, lest the residue undergo unpleasant transformations, and . Sugar, unfortunately no; now I have to use stevia (or some artificial sweetener ) instead.
Or you could like train your tastebuds to not require sugar. Plus lemon makes the tea taste much better
Is this like a theoretical smart-assery or a real suggestion?
Yes, I could train my taste buds NoT tO rEqUiRe SuGaR , but the reality is I'm fucking addicted and sugar is the only joy on my life.
Now I love sugar as much as the next guy, probably even more. But to need to put it in your tea or coffee is ridiculous. Just stop doing it and in a short while your tastebuds will come to accept that you don't need sugar if you stop overloading them with sugar, normal things will actually taste sweeter.
Edit: I don't think I even have any sugar in my house. Not to say that I don't eat yogurt with too much sugar in it, or eat mangoes and mandarins (the good stuff), add honey sometimes or even eat dried mangoes or cranberries, so I definitely eat a lot of added sugar I shouldn't, but to add plain sugar to your tea? Why?
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Since we were originally talking about Amazon Cloud: do you know that it is easy to "steal" the entire S3 domain?
Deciding which part of a domain name already belongs to a specific entity is … decidedly difficult. There is https://publicsuffix.org/¹, but 1. that's just a manually maintained list that might be incomplete, or 2. the BlueSky thing might not even be using it. Or, 3., AWS does not assign separate subdomains to separate buckets, which would be a (I don't do AWS, I only do Azure, and Azure does give each “storage account” its own subdomain—which is important for some use-cases where you want to set CORS to or from it).
¹ I am not sure what referenced me to that, but have this suspicion it was MDN for some web security/isolation thingy, which makes it .
-
@dangeRuss said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
But to need to put it in your tea or coffee is ridiculous. Just stop doing it and in a short while your tastebuds will come to accept that you don't need sugar
Can confirm.
It only took me 2 or 3 days before I was "this is just as good".
-
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@dangeRuss said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@PleegWat Milk, no, unless I'm making masala chai. Not because I don't like milk in my tea, but I'd have to wash my mug every time I make a cuppa, lest the residue undergo unpleasant transformations, and . Sugar, unfortunately no; now I have to use stevia (or some artificial sweetener ) instead.
Or you could like train your tastebuds to not require sugar. Plus lemon makes the tea taste much better
Is this like a theoretical smart-assery or a real suggestion?
Yes, I could train my taste buds NoT tO rEqUiRe SuGaR , but the reality is I'm fucking addicted and sugar is the only joy on my life.
Start drinking more alcohol?
-
@boomzilla said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@dangeRuss said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@PleegWat Milk, no, unless I'm making masala chai. Not because I don't like milk in my tea, but I'd have to wash my mug every time I make a cuppa, lest the residue undergo unpleasant transformations, and . Sugar, unfortunately no; now I have to use stevia (or some artificial sweetener ) instead.
Or you could like train your tastebuds to not require sugar. Plus lemon makes the tea taste much better
Is this like a theoretical smart-assery or a real suggestion?
Yes, I could train my taste buds NoT tO rEqUiRe SuGaR , but the reality is I'm fucking addicted and sugar is the only joy on my life.
Start drinking more alcohol?
Way ahead of you mate
-
An article I read about this today made a pretty good point. I's not even so much about microservices vs. monoliths—obviously the "upload an image to storage and then download it again" approach is stupid, but they could have decoupled the processes and sent stuff between memories over the network without even touching storage, making the whole thing easier to scale horizontally without being horribly inefficient. With 10Gb networks and zero-copy network cards, the network usually isn't the the bottleneck any more.
What they did was mainly reduce costs by working around Amazon's stupid pricing that charges for absolutely everything that you wouldn't even bother to account for when running your own infrastructure, like traffic within the data center, or hard disk space that isn't even being used as a shared resource in their case because of the substantial hardware requirements.
-
Last week there was a huge meeting with all the technical folks about revamping the application to the latest architecture.
What we have
A monolith web app running on a VM that connects to SQL Server on the cloud with some serverless functions and storage.
New architecture
Serverless functions + NoSQL databases + storage. That web app is going to be split into about 85 microservices (Serverless func + NoSQL database) and NoSQL databases for literally any other data storage. IIRC and there is a lot of cross cloud communication cos of a demented idea of High Availability.
I wanna stay along for the ride to see the many ways in which this will spectacularly blow up!
-
@LaoC The cost for me learning about ingress / egress being a thing was about 1500 USD paid to AWS. My bad but boy oh boy those costs add up like no one else's business.
-
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Last week there was a huge meeting with all the technical folks about revamping the application to the latest architecture.
What we have
A monolith web app running on a VM that connects to SQL Server on the cloud with some serverless functions and storage.
New architecture
Serverless functions + NoSQL databases + storage. That web app is going to be split into about 85 microservices (Serverless func + NoSQL database) and NoSQL databases for literally any other data storage. IIRC and there is a lot of cross cloud communication cos of a demented idea of High Availability.
Splitting the app is work. of it. Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
Also, does the app use any relational features in the database, that is, is there any joining going on in the queries? If yes, trying to replace it with NoSQL will be . As will be migrating the data even if there isn't much joining.
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Last week there was a huge meeting with all the technical folks about revamping the application to the latest architecture.
What we have
A monolith web app running on a VM that connects to SQL Server on the cloud with some serverless functions and storage.
New architecture
Serverless functions + NoSQL databases + storage. That web app is going to be split into about 85 microservices (Serverless func + NoSQL database) and NoSQL databases for literally any other data storage. IIRC and there is a lot of cross cloud communication cos of a demented idea of High Availability.
Splitting the app is work. of it. Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
Also, does the app use any relational features in the database, that is, is there any joining going on in the queries? If yes, trying to replace it with NoSQL will be . As will be migrating the data even if there isn't much joining.
Also, is there any purpose for swapping from RDBMS to NoSQL? If not, why do it?
-
@stillwater The idea of going from SQL to NoSQL raises my hackles, unless you've got a very document-oriented or stream-oriented problem. If you're going to end up redoing JOINs in application code, that's such a bad plan. The great thing about SQL is that you can hoist so much of the complexity of generating answers to be really close to the data (and indices) that can answer them.
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
My money is on justifying employment of several managers.
-
@MrL said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
My money is on justifying employment of several managers.
I will take "fancy resume stuff" for developers and architects (and IT managers, too).
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@MrL said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
My money is on justifying employment of several managers.
I will take "fancy resume stuff" for developers and architects (and IT managers, too).
Someone senior read an article and can't wait to try it out.
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Joel Spolsky said in https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/:
As if source code rusted.
Well...
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Joel Spolsky said in https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/:
As if source code rusted.
Well...
Who'd have thought that 20 years later there will be a positive side to Rusting code
-
@Bulb well, if Rust-with-Nails can kill off Ruby-on-Rails I am all for it.
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Rust-with-Nails
Careful! You might need to get a tetanus shot.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Rust-with-Nails
Careful! You might need to get a tetanus shot.
Is that the name of the compiler?
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
kill off Ruby-on-Rails
Someone's using that? I had the impression that it was kind of a prototype, showing new ways to do object-relational mapping and routing and such, but ultimately other frameworks picked the ideas, polished them and implemented them in more mainstream languages than Ruby like Python, Java and C# and later also JavaScript and that most people use those Ruby-on-Rails-inspired frameworks rather than Ruby-on-Rails itself.
-
@Bulb part of the issue is that DHH saw the way the wind was blowing and Rails 7 was a conscious step to rethink some of the fluff around the core framework - https://rubyonrails.org/2021/12/15/Rails-7-fulfilling-a-vision
RoR still has some heavy adoption in the same way that even outside WordPress, PHP still has heavy adoption (and Laravel definitely borrowed from Rails)
Though I couldn't tell you who uses RoR, because Ruby in general has a reputation more in the toilet than PHP does, which is saying something.
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
because Ruby in general has a reputation more in the toilet than PHP does
Whoa what the fuck? Source? I'm interested cos I've heard nothing but good stuff about Ruby/RoR.
-
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
I've heard nothing but good stuff about Ruby/RoR.
uses it. That's
goodbad enough for me.
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Is there actually a good business justification for doing it?
Ofcourse not.
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Also, does the app use any relational features in the database, that is, is there any joining going on in the queries?
It uses all the relational features a typical relational database would and there are plenty of joins and whatnot. There is absolutely no reason for this to go NoSQL.
@Carnage said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Also, is there any purpose for swapping from RDBMS to NoSQL? If not, why do it?
Well, according to the architect who read an article - A Microservice = Azure function + CosmosDB.
We've extrapolated to that idea to multicloud! As we speak, we're already having troubles converting some of the SQL database structures to a NoSQL format and everyone is like "hmmmm this seems difficult"
Also going down this route means the serverless function <--> database communication is gonna be chatty af. It's all gonna blow up in a few ways. Y'all are lucky to see this shitshow go down in real time.
-
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
architect who read an article
You seem to have been visited by an Architecture Astronaut. That might be Interesting Times.
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
Azure function
And you are implementing them in .нет? You might be in for a real treat. See, I'm currently in process of redeploying some of those with a more appropriate tooling (like CI) and … there are some older versions of the libraries in use and updating them is a pain in the :donkey:, because some of the components were replaced by newer ‘generation’ that is not just a different package in different namespace, but most of the types were renamed too. And now with .нет 6 they introduced ‘isolated runtime’ and the framework (how you even write and annotate the entry point) is completely different, so a bunch more rewriting. And in .нет 6, both the old and new options exist, but with .нет 7 the old option is going away, so yet more Microsoft-forced busywork. It's really a pile-of-.
… no, functions are fine if you need to quickly cobble together a prototype and push it into the production, but going from your own servlet container to functions is D-U-M-B. Just wrap the servlet container in a container and call it a fortnight (the functionapp service can actually run containers too if you think the extra cost is worth the scaling support).
-
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
because Ruby in general has a reputation more in the toilet than PHP does
Whoa what the fuck? Source? I'm interested cos I've heard nothing but good stuff about Ruby/RoR.
How many projects are using Ruby (not even RoR)? I can only think of Discourse and Jekyll (static site builder) on just Ruby, and I believe Spotify is using RoR.
But you never hear of anyone talking about building new stuff in Ruby.
Not to mention it was a meme a few years ago that Ruby gem packages had bad-to-stupid-to-offensive package names.
TIOBE, if you can trust that, puts it down the list at 18th - above FORTRAN and Classic VB.
Hilariously, TIOBE has Rust at 17 currently, but either way Ruby is still below such stunning joys as Matlab, R, Swift, Scratch…
-
@stillwater said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
because Ruby in general has a reputation more in the toilet than PHP does
Whoa what the fuck? Source? I'm interested cos I've heard nothing but good stuff about Ruby/RoR.
Tell me you've never actually used Ruby without saying you've never actually used Ruby...
-
If it helps clarify, Discourse isn’t actually badly written by Ruby standards, at least at the code level. Or wasn’t when I last looked, around 2015.
-
But compared to fucking PHP?!?
At least Ruby seems to be developed by someone who has a semblance of understanding of computer science and programming language design, whereas PHP was cobbled together as
I suck at C, so I'll make front-end for it"there was never any intent to write a programming language [...] I have absolutely no idea how to write a programming language"
-
@topspin Remember, Ruby was designed as a successor to Perl.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@topspin Remember, Ruby was designed as a successor to Perl.
And PHP is Perl on crack.
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
And in .нет 6, both the old and new options exist, but with .нет 7 the old option is going away, so yet more Microsoft-forced busywork.
This stuff sucks, of course, but so does forever-backward-compatibility, even if it leads to amusing Raymond blog posts.
-
@topspin said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
But compared to fucking PHP?!?
At least Ruby seems to be developed by someone who has a semblance of understanding of computer science and programming language design, whereas PHP was cobbled together as
I suck at C, so I'll make front-end for it"there was never any intent to write a programming language [...] I have absolutely no idea how to write a programming language"Thing about PHP though… it might have a shit reputation but it has major applications using it. Ruby… less so. And you’re right, PHP wasn’t so much as designed as shat out in the first couple of versions (it was originally called Personal Home Page for a reason!) but because it was easy enough to drive and get things going (as well as write quick and dirty scripts), and because it wasn’t Perl, it flourished.
Ruby is a contemporary of PHP - they both started out in the mid 1990s and yet… it never hit the big leagues the way PHP did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languages_used_in_most_popular_websites - compare PHP and Ruby on that list. Some big hitters there using exclusively PHP.
Some mental folks in that crowd even ship a Lua interpreter written in PHP…
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
If it helps clarify, Discourse isn’t actually badly written by Ruby standards, at least at the code level. Or wasn’t when I last looked, around 2015.
South Side of Chicago isn't bad compared to Bakhmut standards.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler huh?
-
@boomzilla different Bakhmut I guess.
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
TIOBE, if you can trust that
You can't. It is utter and complete trash.
If you want something with relevance, go to the stack overflow developer survey. According to that, Ruby is 17th most popular with 6.05% (Matlab, R and Swift are all below it), 50.01% to 49.99% more dreaded than loved (very slightly more than half of people who work with it would like to use something else) and 18th most wanted at mere 2.66% (people who would like to start using it).
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
TIOBE, if you can trust that
You can't. It is utter and complete trash.
If you want something with relevance, go to the stack overflow developer survey. According to that, Ruby is 17th most popular with 6.05% (Matlab, R and Swift are all below it), 50.01% to 49.99% more dreaded than loved (very slightly more than half of people who work with it would like to use something else) and 18th most wanted at mere 2.66% (people who would like to start using it).
And TIOBE puts it at 18th, so... why is it "utter and complete trash" when it gives the same results?
-
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
And you are implementing them in .нет? You might be in for a real treat. See, I'm currently in process of redeploying some of those with a more appropriate tooling (like CI) and … there are some older versions of the libraries in use and updating them is a pain in the :donkey:, because some of the components were replaced by newer ‘generation’ that is not just a different package in different namespace, but most of the types were renamed too. And now with .нет 6 they introduced ‘isolated runtime’ and the framework (how you even write and annotate the entry point) is completely different, so a bunch more rewriting. And in .нет 6, both the old and new options exist, but with .нет 7 the old option is going away, so yet more Microsoft-forced busywork. It's really a pile-of-.
… no, functions are fine if you need to quickly cobble together a prototype and push it into the production, but going from your own servlet container to functions is D-U-M-B. Just wrap the servlet container in a container and call it a fortnight (the functionapp service can actually run containers too if you think the extra cost is worth the scaling support).Reading this shit made me wanna puke and gave me a headache, brings back a lot of bad memories. I was there during the .NET core 1.0 to .NET core 3.0 and it was fucked up in so many ways nothing we have now comes close.
Luckily, this won't affect me cos the chucklefuck that's gonna be dealing with this is not me. Remembe this is multicloud, so this is gonna be up on AWS Lambda and Google cloud functions. I'm ordering myself a truckload of popcorn for the next month.
-
@Mason_Wheeler It's a coincidence. The languages around it are completely different ones.
-
@boomzilla Bahamut
-
@boomzilla said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
@Bulb said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
And in .нет 6, both the old and new options exist, but with .нет 7 the old option is going away, so yet more Microsoft-forced busywork.
This stuff sucks, of course, but so does forever-backward-compatibility, even if it leads to amusing Raymond blog posts.
Most of these changes are rather gratuitous though. The underlying protocols might have gained a few features, but not many and are backward compatible just fine. It's just the client libraries that keep changing. And if you used a (docker) container with your own servlet container, you could at least update them at your own pace rather than being tied to what the ‘serverless’ system is willing to give you.
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
- compare PHP and Ruby on that list. Some big hitters there using exclusively PHP.
According to this Twitter is the only big thing using Rails. That explains a lot, both about Rails and Twitter.
Anyone who actually writes software, please report to the 10th floor at 2 p.m. today.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity And Twitter moved off Rails to Scala...
-
@Arantor said in Even Amazon can't make sense of microservices!:
And Twitter moved off Rails
to Scala