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

Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

charap.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

#21

Post by polskibus »

rdw wrote: post #8

The hypothesis in the article could be correct (that industry is not adopting new academic innovations because they fail in the real world). Based on my experience in this industry, though, it could just be that there isn't a super strong connection between academia and the people implementing these kinds of systems. I've had many conversations with my academically-minded friends where they're astonished that we have…

I've been to SIGMOD and I've seen plenty of database industry people there, I don't think that the knowledge is not being transferred. I guess it is more about business priorities or choosing the known unknown over unknown unknown for support.

Re: Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

#22

Post by howaboutnope »

historyloop wrote: post #20
rdw wrote: post #8

The hypothesis in the article could be correct (that industry is not adopting new academic innovations because they fail in the real world). Based on my experience in this industry, though, it could just be that there isn't a super strong connection between academia and the people implementing these kinds of systems. I've had many conversations with my academically-minded friends where they're astonished that we have…

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when an argument in that area starts using fake math to drive a point home. Top-tier engineers spend 6 months to have 20% improvement that could be achieved by spending 20% more on hardware? Where IS all this coming from? Why is it acceptable to pull out a few random numbers out of our ass and conclude that it's always best to buy more hardware? I know Google literally invented HTTP/…

Google is an outlier among outliers.

Re: Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

#23

Post by iforgotpassword »

historyloop wrote: post #20
rdw wrote: post #8

The hypothesis in the article could be correct (that industry is not adopting new academic innovations because they fail in the real world). Based on my experience in this industry, though, it could just be that there isn't a super strong connection between academia and the people implementing these kinds of systems. I've had many conversations with my academically-minded friends where they're astonished that we have…

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when an argument in that area starts using fake math to drive a point home. Top-tier engineers spend 6 months to have 20% improvement that could be achieved by spending 20% more on hardware? Where IS all this coming from? Why is it acceptable to pull out a few random numbers out of our ass and conclude that it's always best to buy more hardware? I know Google literally invented HTTP/…

20% more hardware for google isn't the same as for your local IT biz rocking a small data center. If google can save 1% on hw cost they can feed an army of devs for 6 months.

Re: Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

#24

Post by rixed »

rdw wrote: post #8

The hypothesis in the article could be correct (that industry is not adopting new academic innovations because they fail in the real world). Based on my experience in this industry, though, it could just be that there isn't a super strong connection between academia and the people implementing these kinds of systems. I've had many conversations with my academically-minded friends where they're astonished that we have…

I do not buy the economic argument. Academia is aiming at individual excellence whereas the industry is, at large, about employee replaceability. This may be a valid economic argument in itself, but I believe there is another appeal to technical mediocrity in the reassurance it provides to management.

Re: Scalable but Wasteful, or why fast replication protocols are slow

#26

Post by carlosf »

rixed wrote: post #24
rdw wrote: post #8

The hypothesis in the article could be correct (that industry is not adopting new academic innovations because they fail in the real world). Based on my experience in this industry, though, it could just be that there isn't a super strong connection between academia and the people implementing these kinds of systems. I've had many conversations with my academically-minded friends where they're astonished that we have…

I do not buy the economic argument. Academia is aiming at individual excellence whereas the industry is, at large, about employee replaceability. This may be a valid economic argument in itself, but I believe there is another appeal to technical mediocrity in the reassurance it provides to management.

When I was part of academia I was under the impression we were aiming for publishing papers, which is why I left.
Post reply on HN