Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ClusterHQ is shutting down

clusterhq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 230 posts

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#131

Post by twblalock »

hoodoof wrote: post #124
mark212 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

No. The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Presumably the CEO did all they could to succeed and behaved in an ethical and honorable manner. If they did so, then investors have been well served. I will agree however that anyone who ever chooses to do business with you in any context deserves thanks. On that basis, thanks is dese…

> The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business.

Plus, they knew the risks. There is no reason to feel sorry for early-stage investors who lose money unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated on them.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#132

Post by twblalock »

mark212 wrote: post #121
hoodoof wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless an investor additionally gave a loan, there is no debt owed in any way to investors - that's the point, they made a decision to invest at risk and presumably did due diligence based on accurate information.

comment says "metaphoric" debt. Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

> Surely you can agree that the principals of a company owe (in the sense of being socially obligated) a debt of thanks and gratitude to investors for taking a risk on them in the first place?

Investors don't take on risk for the sake of the company they invest in. They take on risk because they think they will make money for themselves, and they would screw over the CEO and all of the employees, and other investors, in a heartbeat if they could get a good exit.

The investors got an ownership stake in an early-stage company with a high risk of failure and a corresponding high potential reward. The company got money to fund operations. Both parties got what they signed up for, and there is no imbalance in gratitude owed.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#133

Post by hodgesrm »

colanderman wrote: post #53
chrissnell wrote: post #15

We've been running Kubernetes (500+ containers) in production for over a year now. I believe (and hope) that 2017 will be the year that persistent data storage will be solved. We are ready to move our data out of OpenStack and have our data services (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MySQL, MongoDB) join the rest of our apps on Kube-orchestrated infrastructure. But, we're not there yet. The options just aren't good enough. L…

Check out the startup I work for, ClearSky Data [1]. We provide cloud-hosted block storage with SAN-level performance to your private datacenter and enterprise-grade durability and availability at a competitive price. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have (I'm an engineer) or point you to someone who can. [1] http://www.clearskydata.com/

Given the topic you are posting on, my question would be what happens if ClearSky goes out of business? Potentially any file system hosted on your storage would just disappear, right? (And the DR capability too, if I am reading your website correctly.)

I don't mean to be negative but I'm having some trouble seeing how the ClearSky feature set justifies assuming what looks like an existential risk to business-critical data on the service. Interested in your thoughts on this.

edit: typo

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#134

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

jdoliner wrote: post #130
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errr, wait what? Firstly, to say there's no debt, monetary or otherwise, to someone who believed in your company enough to hand over their own money (or money in their control) to back you is just pure arrogance. Secondly, there absolutely is debt. When a company goes into administration the assets are sold to pay out those who hold equity in the company. They're literally owed debt. EDIT : To clarify for those respo…

No matter how many times you say that this situation is "literally the definition of debt" you're still not going to the legal definition of debt so that it applies here. Equity is not debt, they do both until eventually owing another entity money. But in a legal sense that is not literally the definition of debt, because it is also part of equity which again isn't debt. From a practical perspective the difference is…

I have zero idea what the legal definition of debt is in the country/jurisdiction you live in. I also didn't specify what country I live in.

Additionally, my first point was one of metaphorical (social) debt.

Given the context and the fact I'm typing in English it ought to have been clear I was referring to the definition of debt in English. If that wasn't clear, I apologise for the confusion.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#135

Post by cookiecaper »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #72
tw04 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>NFS? No way. Not performant. Really? https://www.spec.org/sfs2008/results/res2011q4/sfs2008-20111... And those are nothing compared to modern systems.

I've had many problems with NFS, but they were not performance related. Mostly FS hangs with some program waiting for IO that never comes.

This is the biggest issue I've had with NFS. If the mount goes stale, programs can get stuck in an uninterruptable state that takes a reboot to clear out.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#136

Post by chrissnell »

tw04 wrote: post #60
chrissnell wrote: post #15

We've been running Kubernetes (500+ containers) in production for over a year now. I believe (and hope) that 2017 will be the year that persistent data storage will be solved. We are ready to move our data out of OpenStack and have our data services (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MySQL, MongoDB) join the rest of our apps on Kube-orchestrated infrastructure. But, we're not there yet. The options just aren't good enough. L…

>NFS? No way. Not performant. Really? https://www.spec.org/sfs2008/results/res2011q4/sfs2008-20111... And those are nothing compared to modern systems.

Let me clarify: not performant in any way that we want to implement. The NetApp referenced in that analysis would cost as much as we've spent on both of our OpenStack and Kube clusters. NetApp is great if you're a hospital or a bank but not an internet company.

We need something built on common PC chassis, either as distributed local storage or some type of high speed interconnect.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#137

Post by chrissnell »

colanderman wrote: post #94
mst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the hardware storing the data in-datacentre too? I think that was the key thing.

We (ClearSky) store your data off-site (except a small cache), but provide performance as if the data were on-site.

I don't believe you. There's no way you're coming even close to local disk performance with an off-prem solution.

Feel free to prove me wrong but I don't think that this is a reasonable solution for backing storage for a database.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#138

Post by chrissnell »

hodgesrm wrote: post #133
colanderman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the startup I work for, ClearSky Data [1]. We provide cloud-hosted block storage with SAN-level performance to your private datacenter and enterprise-grade durability and availability at a competitive price. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have (I'm an engineer) or point you to someone who can. [1] http://www.clearskydata.com/

Given the topic you are posting on, my question would be what happens if ClearSky goes out of business? Potentially any file system hosted on your storage would just disappear, right? (And the DR capability too, if I am reading your website correctly.) I don't mean to be negative but I'm having some trouble seeing how the ClearSky feature set justifies assuming what looks like an existential risk to business-critical…

Exactly. Besides the obvious technical implications of off-site, "cloud-based" storage, what happens if ClearSky can't pay it's hosting bill? Presumably, your many TBs of data (which could take weeks to transfer) would vanish into thin air.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#139

Post by chrissnell »

X-Istence wrote: post #75
chrissnell wrote: post #15

We've been running Kubernetes (500+ containers) in production for over a year now. I believe (and hope) that 2017 will be the year that persistent data storage will be solved. We are ready to move our data out of OpenStack and have our data services (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MySQL, MongoDB) join the rest of our apps on Kube-orchestrated infrastructure. But, we're not there yet. The options just aren't good enough. L…

Ceph RBD is plenty fast for having a database on... was able to get better performance than fibre channel or NFS to a NetApp using Ceph, ran some nice large Oracle instances on VM's on top of OpenStack backed by Ceph RBD.

My testing showed otherwise but I'd love to see what you've done. What sort of equipment did you use, what kind of network, and what how many IOPS did you see?

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#140

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

twblalock wrote: post #131
hoodoof wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Presumably the CEO did all they could to succeed and behaved in an ethical and honorable manner. If they did so, then investors have been well served. I will agree however that anyone who ever chooses to do business with you in any context deserves thanks. On that basis, thanks is dese…

> The relationship is wrong if you feel indebted to your investors and like they deserve thanks. They are partners in the business. Plus, they knew the risks. There is no reason to feel sorry for early-stage investors who lose money unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated on them.

Do you feel sorry for an athlete who hurts themselves?

Do you feel sorry for wife of a stuntman who dies in an accident?

Do you feel sorry for those with a gambling addiction?

I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy.

Post reply on HN