11–20 of 114 posts
Never heard of this "hyperscale" concept before. How is this any different from... scaling?
Supermarkets and super cars aren't enough. We need hypermarkets and hyper cars to be current. So now we can’t just scale, I guess that’s for trucks, so to be current you need hyperscale.
(I'm joking)
Ksplice is the original live patching technology that got bought by Oracle and was later extended to user space programs while I worked there. It's a really neat technology that isn't made obsolete by the move to cloud, since you still don't want to have to restart the whole fleet at scale.
"Draining and un-draining hosts is hard." I'd stop right there and fix that, because that's a bullshit reason. Cycling hosts in and out of service is easy unless you're not doing things properly. The Linux kernel is simply not designed to be live patched and it's a total hack to try to do it, it will never work 100% of the time, always be a source of uncertainty, and always be expensive in terms of engineering work.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperscale_computing
> In computing, hyperscale is the ability of an architecture to scale appropriately as increased demand is added to the system. So yeah just scaling. I agree I've never heard the word "hyperscale" before and don't think we need that extra intensifier for a well-understood idea.
"Draining and un-draining hosts is hard." I'd stop right there and fix that, because that's a bullshit reason. Cycling hosts in and out of service is easy unless you're not doing things properly. The Linux kernel is simply not designed to be live patched and it's a total hack to try to do it, it will never work 100% of the time, always be a source of uncertainty, and always be expensive in terms of engineering work.…
So what? At large enough scale organization problems are harder than technical ones: if you can fix the former with the latter, that's still a win.
"Draining and un-draining hosts is hard." I'd stop right there and fix that, because that's a bullshit reason. Cycling hosts in and out of service is easy unless you're not doing things properly. The Linux kernel is simply not designed to be live patched and it's a total hack to try to do it, it will never work 100% of the time, always be a source of uncertainty, and always be expensive in terms of engineering work.…
Nothing will work 100% of the time. If their patching mechanism is thoroughly tested and battle hardened, I think the risk would be acceptable. Once you do the initial kpatch security upgrade, you could even schedule the machine for serivce so that it's not relying on that, limiting your exposure to bugs.
"Draining and un-draining hosts is hard." I'd stop right there and fix that, because that's a bullshit reason. Cycling hosts in and out of service is easy unless you're not doing things properly. The Linux kernel is simply not designed to be live patched and it's a total hack to try to do it, it will never work 100% of the time, always be a source of uncertainty, and always be expensive in terms of engineering work.…
Never heard of this "hyperscale" concept before. How is this any different from... scaling?