papsosouid

>Does TPC require durability?

Yes.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My entire point was that you can buy a single server that is more powerful than their entire cluster. You appear to agree, but think that is a problem?

Even the low end of single servers goes up to a couple TB of RAM. "Enterprise" hardware has been there for ages.

I'm not sure why you are asking me about this.

>They create big, complex, fragile architectures because they started with simple, off-the-shelf architectures that completely fell over at scale.

No, they fell over at "shit we're hitting the limits of our hardware, lets re-architect everything instead of buying bigger hardware". Rather than buy 1000 shitty $2000 servers, buy 2 good $1,000,000 servers. I know it is not fad-compliant, but it does in fact work.

The fact that you think "consumer scale web traffic" is some magical thing is exactly what I am talking about. Have you ever heard of TPC? They have done benchmarks of database driven systems for a long time. TPC-C measures performance of a particular write query, while maintaining the set ratio of other active queries. The top non-clustered result right now does 142,000 new orders per second. Yes, a single server can handle 300k reads and 6k writes per second.

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?result...

The "fanout" or "wasteful duplication of a single message 30 million times" is only required because they are using tiny underpowered hardware to begin with. The approach that they claim can't possibly work actually does work. You just can't do it on a $2000 "server".

They are not serving 150 million concurrent users. They have 150 million active users. As in, people who do in fact use twitter at all, as opposed to the millions of dead accounts nobody touches. They are not all being served at once.

It is a good metric to use precisely for the reason you state. You want your applications to be in RAM. You want your files to be cached in RAM. You have finite RAM. The less RAM your system is using, the more is available for applications and files.

I really question the current trend of creating big, complex, fragile architectures to "be able to scale". These numbers are a great example of why, the entire thing could run on a single server, in a very straight forward setup. When you are creating a cluster for scalability, and it has less CPU, RAM and IO than a single server, what are you gaining? They are only doing 6k writes a second for crying out loud.

That's a terrible example, both because it has nothing to do with speed (your complaint is about scalability, not speed) and because it is wrong. Having a pool of workers to handle requests while using event driven interfaces is normal now, and gives you the best of both worlds. Your theoretical attack works the same as it would on nginx: you'd need to run it out of file handles.

What sort of reaction would you feel is appropriate when someone builds a bridge incorrectly, and it collapses? "Oh hey, that's too bad, good try though!"? When someone does something horrible wrong and demonstrates that they are incompetent, that needs to be said. Everyone needs to know "this person is incompetent, do not use their work".

>The brothers have this massive, massive blindspot regarding the importance of the UI.

No they don't. They keep saying over and over again that they know the UI is bad, and they know it drives away potential players. They said it right in this very article even. I am always amazed at how many people are so desperate to tell others how to run their affairs that they invent false ignorance in others so they can step in and tell them how to do things.

>and there's lots of empirical evidence that sign-up rates are drastically higher with social login.

Where? I've never seen any evidence at all, just claims from social marketing weasels. The only empirical evidence I've seen shows it doesn't help at all, and that the majority of users don't like it.

And what I mean is that is simply not true. Monolithic kernels give us unstable systems like windows, linux, BSDs, etc. Virtually ever highly reliable operating system is built on a microkernel.

What? When and where has any part of linux been proven correct?

You found lots of bugs reading the plan 9 kernel source, and forgot to report them?

>Minix was first released in 87, three years before development on HURD even began.

Minix wasn't an attempt at a production kernel in 1987. Minix 1 and Minix 2 were purely for teaching. Minix 3 was a completely new project, and wasn't started until 2005.

>but perhaps it will be decently soon

The history of the project and its current state suggest that is unlikely.

>Development on HURD has really surged in the past year or two, I'd like to say.

You might very well like to say that, but that doesn't mean it is true. There are no competent systems programmers working for/with GNU, it is highly unlikely that the random assortment of people chosen for their politics rather than their skillset will be able to turn the longest festering mess of code ever into a production ready kernel.

Why? Because in the time HURD has sat around trying to figure out whose code to use and call HURD, other people have actually written useful kernels. Minix for example.

Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious example.

>If you have enough application servers for session sharing to be a problem, you probably already have enough complexity to worry about

You definitely have lots of complexity. Which is why adding more is bad. There is no point where things are so complex that making it more complex is cool.

> If you don't want to add another daemon to your stack, just reuse whatever you were using before, whether it's Memcached, MongoDB, or plain old MySQL.

Sure, just make things slower and more likely to fail for no reason.

>Gain nothing? Why?

Because you can just store the session in an encrypted cookie. There is no need for it to be on any server at all.

>Nowadays you can just throw all your sessions in a Redis node and access them in a fraction of a millisecond from a thousand different servers.

You seriously believe that? Adding tons of extra complexity, latency, and potential failure modes to gain absolutely nothing is not a trivial thing.

My web development workflow is great actually. Just my browser application development is broken. Trying to conflate the two very different things just confuses the issue.

Which is why a website makes far more sense. You could do it for a couple hundred bucks.

But that is backwards for this case. They are trying for "perfection" by writing a mobile app so it looks just so and the ui is just the way they want it, when "good enough" would be a simple web site that took a couple hours to make and have online.

I didn't say anything about you or what you claim. Resorting to the logical fallacy fallacy is pretty poor in general, but quite ridiculous when you aren't even using the terms correctly.

What evil was done in my name, or for my benefit? You are deliberately conflating someone incidentally benefiting from something with it being done to benefit them. Your consistent, deliberate dishonesty speaks volumes about your faith in your beliefs.

No, I am not disregarding their opinions. They are perfectly entitled to their opinions. I am saying their opinions are not objectively correct simply because they are taking the active position of complaining, while people who aren't upset obviously don't make a lot of noise about how indifferent they are.

Also, nobody is being oppressed or discriminated against in this situation.

>Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years

No, it wasn't. You are deliberately conflating the life of some women to that of women period. It would be every bit as absurd and dishonest to claim that "the status of men as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years" because some men were slaves.

> By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.

Yes, I know that your beliefs are hilarious. I am not suggesting that I do not understand them, but rather that they are in fact ridiculous. You can not atone for someone else's actions, and even if you could, being a whiney, hypersensitive bully on the internet is not atoning for anything.

Odd you should say so. My wife is a programmer, and distances herself from the online computing world not because of "misogyny", but because of this insane crowd of privileged people who insist on pretending to be victims in her name.