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

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#221

Post by jlgaddis »

colanderman wrote: post #174
chrissnell wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this report? A link to a marketing data collection form? Come on. Link me to the PDF. Let's see the technical details of exactly how your solution is built out.

Technical details are here [1], though if entering a name and e-mail in a form is off-putting to you, I'm not sure anything could convince you to take the step of switching enterprise storage vendors. Aside, I can't express how validating it is how much you (and others, given the downvotes) disbelieve me. It makes me quite proud to have helped develop a service considered so impossible that it is written off as black…

Wow.

First, this is a technical audience. Plenty (most?) of us couldn't give a shit about what marketing says. I believe about half of what comes out of the mouths of sales/marketing folks -- for good reason. We don't care what Gardner or some firm you paid to write up a report says.

Personally, I have a real dislike of sales/marketing folks and I will avoid them at all costs... so, no, I don't want to give you my name or e-mail address. I don't want your people calling me, interrupting real work. I don't want to view your webinar. I want to look at the technical details -- the facts -- and decide for myself and then, quite possibly, completely forget I ever heard about your company and go about my day.

Last, don't fool yourself. The downvotes aren't "validation" -- at all -- but, hey, go on living in your fantasy world. If it really was as awesome as you seem to think it is, it wouldn't be hard to market. To the contrary, the damn thing would sell itself and you wouldn't even need a marketing department.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#222

Post by colanderman »

jlgaddis wrote: post #221
colanderman wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical details are here [1], though if entering a name and e-mail in a form is off-putting to you, I'm not sure anything could convince you to take the step of switching enterprise storage vendors. Aside, I can't express how validating it is how much you (and others, given the downvotes) disbelieve me. It makes me quite proud to have helped develop a service considered so impossible that it is written off as black…

Wow. First, this is a technical audience. Plenty (most?) of us couldn't give a shit about what marketing says. I believe about half of what comes out of the mouths of sales/marketing folks -- for good reason. We don't care what Gardner or some firm you paid to write up a report says. Personally, I have a real dislike of sales/marketing folks and I will avoid them at all costs... so, no, I don't want to give you my na…

Your loss buddy.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#223

Post by praneshp »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #172
praneshp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Only definition that matters is the one in the jurisdiction this startup was in.

Last I checked this was a tech website not a legal one...

So?

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#224

Post by tw04 »

kureikain wrote: post #216
user5994461 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, databases came with numerous warning in the docs "don't run me on a network drive". Is there any reason why you are trying this at all?

I don't know how to solve problem of stateful container and data storage so I tried to use a NFS for this and failed.

Not to beat the NetApp horse to death, but they've solved that problem (they just do a poor job of advertising it):

https://github.com/NetApp/netappdvp

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#225

Post by afulay »

Its not like good container storage solutions don't exist for databases and other stateful applications. The problem is in expecting it to be free and open source. Building orchestration or simple file or object storage is easy, but building high performance, resilient, scale out storage that can run on cheap commodity boxes is a difficult task. Once you get over the "free" requirement, there are some good options like ScaleIO and Robin Systems. https://robinsystems.com/containerization-platform-enterpris...

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#226

Post by davidopp__ »

user5994461 wrote: post #214
davidopp__ wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to break your hopes but stateful containers will only ever run on GCE and AWS. Actually Kubernetes is starting to work on support for persistent local volumes; we know the lack of this feature is a significant barrier for running some stateful applications on Kubernetes, particularly on bare metal. The concrete proposal for how we are thinking to do it is at https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pul…

Having containers with local volumes is counter productive. They're just pet that can't be moved around and killed/recreated whenever you want. (Though I understand that it can be useful at times for some testing). IMO: It's a marketing and usage problems. You should re-focus people on running exclusively stateless containers. Sell the strengths of containers, what it's good at and what it's meant to do. Containers =…

I don't understand why you say "Having containers with local volumes is counter productive." I would agree it's probably not a good architecture if you're running a huge single-node Oracle database, but it's an excellent way to run data stores like Cassandra, MongoDB, ElasticSearch, Redis, etcd, Zookeeper, and so on. Many people are already doing this, and as one large-scale real-world example, all of Google's storage systems run in containers. The first containerized applications (both at Google and in the "real world") were indeed stateless, but there's nothing fundamental about containers that makes them fundamentally ill-suited for stateful applications.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#227

Post by pas »

parasubvert wrote: post #59
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…

I'd suggest looking at ScaleIO from EMC which is free for unsupported use I believe. It is blazing fast, runs on bog standard Linux, and supports K8S and Cinder. It's the most impressive block storage product for high performance I've seen. http://cloudscaling.com/blog/cloud-computing/killing-the-sto...

Any chance to see a comparison on recent Ceph version(s)? (Maybe with BlueStore as Ceph's backend?)

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#228

Post by user5994461 »

davidopp__ wrote: post #226
user5994461 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having containers with local volumes is counter productive. They're just pet that can't be moved around and killed/recreated whenever you want. (Though I understand that it can be useful at times for some testing). IMO: It's a marketing and usage problems. You should re-focus people on running exclusively stateless containers. Sell the strengths of containers, what it's good at and what it's meant to do. Containers =…

I don't understand why you say "Having containers with local volumes is counter productive." I would agree it's probably not a good architecture if you're running a huge single-node Oracle database, but it's an excellent way to run data stores like Cassandra, MongoDB, ElasticSearch, Redis, etcd, Zookeeper, and so on. Many people are already doing this, and as one large-scale real-world example, all of Google's storag…

You don't understand because you are blinded and spoiled by Google.

Go see the outside world => They have none of your internal tech and services. Stateful containers do not exist there. "Containers" means "docker" which is experimental at best.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#229

Post by robhaswell »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #103

Could this be in any way akin to the shutdown of Lavabit? I know it's not the same type of company, but if there was pressure to put back doors in or any sort of compromise, I would support the action. If not, then it's a really bad way to shut up shop. OK the source is out there but given the holiday season people might have appreciated a little warning.

Hi, founder of ClusterHQ here. I was just reminiscing over the demise of my company, and saw this comment had not been replied to.

I can categorically state that there was no pressure to install back-doors or any Lavabit-style problems.

As for your other comment, as a business you don't get to choose when you run out of money. I believe there was a plan to secure more money, and when that plan failed the employees were told immediately. The timing is irrelevant.

Re: ClusterHQ is shutting down

#230

Post by alex_hitchins »

robhaswell wrote: post #229
alex_hitchins wrote: post #103

Could this be in any way akin to the shutdown of Lavabit? I know it's not the same type of company, but if there was pressure to put back doors in or any sort of compromise, I would support the action. If not, then it's a really bad way to shut up shop. OK the source is out there but given the holiday season people might have appreciated a little warning.

Hi, founder of ClusterHQ here. I was just reminiscing over the demise of my company, and saw this comment had not been replied to. I can categorically state that there was no pressure to install back-doors or any Lavabit-style problems. As for your other comment, as a business you don't get to choose when you run out of money. I believe there was a plan to secure more money, and when that plan failed the employees we…

Thank you for the comment.

I appreciate as a business you don't have complete control of your destiny. There is a fine line between keeping employees informed and scaring them witless and I appreciate you were doing the right thing for your company. I or anyone else would likely have done the same in your situation.

Post reply on HN