51–60 of 233 posts
It seems like they’ve gotten to the “holy grail” of deployment where developers don’t have to worry about infrastructure at all in theory. I’ve seen many teams go for simple/leaky abstractions on top Kubernetes to provide a similar solution, which is tempting because it’s easy and flexible. The problem is then all your devs need to be trained in all the complexities of Kubernetes deployments anyway. Hopefully Uber ab…
It's not clear to me that being completely unaware of your infrastructure is a good thing. I don't think it's too much trouble to ask an engineer to understand k8s and think about where their service will live, even if it's a ci system that actually deploys. Furthermore, many layers of abstraction, especially in-house abstraction, just mean you have more code to maintain, another system for people to learn, and exist…
The implicit goal of these abstractions is really to central knowledge and best practices around the underlying tech. Kubernetes itself is trying to free developers from understanding server management, but you could argue it’s not worth using directly vs. just teaching your devs how to manage VMs for the vast majority of organizations.
I don’t think you’re ever going to stop more and more layers of abstraction, so the best we can hope for is they’re done well. Otherwise you may as well go back to writing raw ethernet frames in assembly on bare metal.
Does Uber really need 4000 microservices?
Uber is a global company (70+ countries) operating Uber and Uber Eats. So almost certainly they are duplicating their entire stack per-country if only to get around the vastly different regulatory environments.
But that scale introduces a lot of complexity so you can't just have "one service for onboarding drivers"
For a company that is basically a taxi service, they seem to invest an awful lot in constant rebuilds of their extremely complex infrastructure, which raises the question of whether that is even remotely necessary or just an exercise in pretending that they are a tech company.
For a company that is basically a taxi service, they seem to invest an awful lot in constant rebuilds of their extremely complex infrastructure, which raises the question of whether that is even remotely necessary or just an exercise in pretending that they are a tech company.
Is this generally a sign of youthful wishful thinking or just plain hubris?
For a company that is basically a taxi service, they seem to invest an awful lot in constant rebuilds of their extremely complex infrastructure, which raises the question of whether that is even remotely necessary or just an exercise in pretending that they are a tech company.
> "Basically a taxi service" Not defending their tech stack, but I mean that is a lot of realtime data that needs to be accurate - this is not your typical SaaS crud app.