101–110 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why use Amazon for static pages? My github page works just fine.
I believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.
I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...
On the flip side, when something DOESN'T need HA, sub-millisecond query response time, or lynx and IE Edge compatability, people need to know when "good enough" is good enough. On my ops team, we've gotten some flak for not building robust enough of a request queue for some tasks. But it's been down several hours in the past year. The server almost never needs maintenance. None of the workload is real-time. App resta…
Even when I worked in electronic trading and we were dealing with 10 million events/second on combined feeds, we kept our architecture simple. Why? Experienced engineers realized that the more moving parts, there's more things that can go wrong (and it makes it that much harder to pinpoint).
Just time your queries, get a P95, and stream data to an analytics database if you don't want your prod to be exposed to added latency. No need to create some fancy distributed consistent system with caching layers and enormous test harnesses if the analytics workload might change next week.
I'm a huge fan of just creating a separate analytics database you stream prod data to and letting those with SQL knowledge play around there. Surprisingly, they rarely break anything. And if they do, it's not going to take down everything else with it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Do you think every single developer is some noble professional only focused on the project? 15 years with software dev experience and every single dev team at midsize and larger companies has always asked for far more time than necessary. Same with almost all enterprise consultants.
How do you know it was more time than necessary? Did you give them the time they asked for and notice at the end of the project people were sitting around bored? Or did you not give them the time they asked for and declare yourself correct after squeezing in a deadline? And if so how do you know what corners were cut or what technical debt was accrued to make a deadline the team did not sign off on? Whether every sin…
This is human nature, people will look out for themselves. Many, if not most, are looking to do the least amount of work in return for the largest reward, and it's very easy at bigger companies to pad hours, compounded by bureaucracy and poor management. This is seen in many other professions amongst all types of people, nothing specific to software.
On the flip side, when something DOESN'T need HA, sub-millisecond query response time, or lynx and IE Edge compatability, people need to know when "good enough" is good enough. On my ops team, we've gotten some flak for not building robust enough of a request queue for some tasks. But it's been down several hours in the past year. The server almost never needs maintenance. None of the workload is real-time. App resta…
On my ops team, we've gotten some flak for not building robust enough of a request queue for some tasks. But it's been down several hours in the past year. The server almost never needs maintenance. None of the workload is real-time. App restarts are acceptable if memory leaks occur. If we did everything by the enterprise book, we'd still be 70% of the way to a deployed product, instead of 15 months into its completi…
Reliable infrastructure at the cost of velocity isn't just good practice, it's self-preservation if you're ops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.
keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS. I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.
keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS. I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know it was more time than necessary? Did you give them the time they asked for and notice at the end of the project people were sitting around bored? Or did you not give them the time they asked for and declare yourself correct after squeezing in a deadline? And if so how do you know what corners were cut or what technical debt was accrued to make a deadline the team did not sign off on? Whether every sin…
15+ years of experience gives me enough info to know what timelines should normally be. These people/teams took far longer and produced less (overall and per day). This is human nature, people will look out for themselves. Many, if not most, are looking to do the least amount of work in return for the largest reward, and it's very easy at bigger companies to pad hours, compounded by bureaucracy and poor management. T…
Could I do the work myself in a week? Yes. Can I assign it to a team of diverse junior to mid-level developers and expect them to do it in a week as well? Realistically, no. They have to investigate, acquire knowledge, work together, be guided on the correct design (or get to it themselves), and then finally do the work and test it to sufficient quality.
Even more so the case if it's tech we have not worked with before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, this is the substantial other side of the argument that almost always seems to be left out of the discussion. "Good enough, done in a week" is a perfectly viable option that is rarely offered by timesheet-padding developers.
What experience has led you to make a comment that is insulting and I'm guessing, without foundation, that there exists a phenomenon whereby developers request more time than is actually needed to complete a project?
As for personal experience, well over two decades in the business, if we're keeping score.
So, you would have readers believe that developers are egoless automatons who do everything by the book? If true, they'd be the only faultless profession on the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Do you think every single developer is some noble professional only focused on the project? 15 years with software dev experience and every single dev team at midsize and larger companies has always asked for far more time than necessary. Same with almost all enterprise consultants.
How do you know it was more time than necessary? Did you give them the time they asked for and notice at the end of the project people were sitting around bored? Or did you not give them the time they asked for and declare yourself correct after squeezing in a deadline? And if so how do you know what corners were cut or what technical debt was accrued to make a deadline the team did not sign off on? Whether every sin…