Comment by cyberlab | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberlab | Hacker News Reader

I like the word antifragile instead of redundancy. I don't operate a datacenter, but in my own personal computing space, I try to build antifragile systems that can bounce back from failure rather rapidly. It is astonishing for example, just how many times I have to roll back a Windows 10 install because it likes to randomly break for whatever reason. It could be anything: a faulty update that corrupts the whole OS. The hard-drive gets filled up really quickly when doing gaming video captures, or games that do really heavy writes to the SSD and wearing it out within a year of use.

Currently I use virtual machines to mitigate this, and you need a beefy setup to do this. If a virtual machines fails, I have a 'template' virtual disk image where I can start afresh. One caveat to VMs is you can't do gaming since you're emulating an OS, so when I can I use a bare metal solution for gaming. You can do basic gaming for games that use low resources (like Minecraft). But forget about playing Crysis or other monsters in a VM!

Antifragile, at least by the definition of Taleb that I believed coined the term, is not "bouncing back quickly", but actually improving after the event.

I don't see how a computing system could be anti-fragile. A team building one, certainly, learning from each mistake and improving the system.

But a system by itself, baring some miraculous learning AI, I don't see how.

An anti fragile computing system is a deep learning algorithm because it gets better from fluctuations in data as it forced it to generalise than end up in local minima

I realize I'm nitpicking, but that's not what antifragile means at all. I think the word for what you are describing is resilient.

Antifragile systems are those which don't just continue to function in the face of unknown inputs, but in fact perform better in the face of shocks to the system. A classic example of this is the California redwood forests that thrive in the face of regular forest fires.

(not the person you're replying to) I appreciate your nitpicking, because I was unaware of that distinction - so, today I learned something!

I'm actually surprised by this; I was under the impression that CPU only took a ~5-10% hit and you can pass the GPU directly to a VM. So I've never actually done it, but I expected VMs to be fine for gaming these days. Where does it fall apart?

VMs are fine for basic games like Minecraft (that isn't resource intensive). It falls apart when you play anything that is resource intensive. Even if you have, say, 32GB of RAM and a good CPU+Graphics, the fact you have to emulate anything at all means it gets noticeably laggier. You can laud the fact that the GPU gets passed to the VM, but since we are emulating, you will notice that.

VMs aren't emulating anything. Services like Stadia and GeForce Now explicitly rely on virtualizing gaming machines to be able to scale them. Nvidia even have a technology for slicing and dicing up large graphic cards to multiple client VMs.

A service that is basically a one way video conference call with a remote system isn't exactly a benchmark for high performance/low latency gaming.

Xbox One/Series X/S actually runs games within a VM as well:

https://wccftech.com/xbox-one-architecture-explained-runs-wi...

Why not robust?

'Robust' assumes the system doesn't need to bounce back from failure, since it's strong enough. But most systems these days are not so strong that they can deal with anything. We have to resort to hacks and mitigation strategies like snapshotting (in the case of VMs) or using fault tolerant filesystems like ZFS or RAID if you operate a datacenter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com