Live data from Hacker News

"SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

rachelbythebay.com

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#41
Ops people are cost centers. They can display their wizardry in blog posts until they are blue in the face, but except for those few companies with an incredibly large moat whose main profit is just raw traffic or high uptime (and how many companies like that can maintain that moat indefinitely anyway), engineers not actually building or directly improving product will always be cost centers.

It brings me no joy to say this, as ops people tend to be very smart and cool under pressure, but I never see myself becoming one. High quality software and airtight system integrity seems decreasingly important to people paying salaries and investing money. And the world moves on. I refuse to be seen as a cost center if I can avoid it, and I don't have much sympathy left for otherwise very smart tech people who haven't figured this out yet. If you love the job, do it. If not, transition and don't complain. The people in charge are not going to be persuaded by blog rhetoric. I said what I said.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#42
post #18

It never meant anything outside Google or huge orgs. Everyone else is running cargo cults.

Moreover, they must be cargo cults.

An SRE role was my first job at Google in 2006. It was a product of its time and place. Google could hire the sort of full stack programmer/sysadmin types that the article talks about because they had enough clout and desirability at that time that they could get very skilled programmers to give up programming and do sucky on-call work instead. Even then, just two years after IPO and receiving glowing press everywhere, they struggled with this proposition. A typical strategy (which worked on me) was to promise that whilst they wouldn't offer a job as a developer right away you'd be able to transfer out of SRE after a few years. Another strategy was to build teams that consisted of mixes of sysadmins and developers. In other words, even back then in the most optimal hiring environment possible, there were very few people who were genuinely both developers and sysadmins in one neat package. There was always a clear bias towards one or the other.

The hiring process was nightmarish for both sides. SRE had a higher rejection rate than SWE with only about 1% of candidates getting an offer; the accept rate was lower. Hundreds of interviews to get one person through the door. I had to do eight interviews that covered everything from TCP to obscure bash puzzlers, simultaneous equations, C, performance debugging, Python and CS algorithms. All of us had to spend enormous amounts of time running interviews as a consequence, and there was a constant shortage of SREs too, meaning many services were being administered and on-call covered by SWE teams instead. Who then grumbled a lot because that wasn't what they'd signed up for, of course.

I think if you're not in a similar situation as Google in 2006 then the SRE role isn't going to make sense for you to try and hire. It's a unicorn role. There just aren't enough people out there who have skills that span such a wide gamut of topics. The fact that she put up an ad for SRE and got "a bunch" of "ops monkeys" is the least surprising thing in the world. Of course that happens. Unless you're willing to interview hundreds of candidates to get one hire, whilst simultaneously running a dragnet recruiting operation, then you'll have to compromise. Even Google had to compromise.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#43
post #19
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a overused quote, but still, seems to apply to "position names" as well: > There are only two hard problems in computer science...

That's because it's difficult to really define a job in IT with clear description along with set roles and responsibilities. In some orgs, it's the title that dictates what you can/can't do. In some orgs, eventually your title is decided based on your role/responsibilities. In many orgs, your title is just an HR/accounting construct and has no relation to what you do and you do whatever your boss asks you to regardle…

I was in a company where we had separate external and internal titles.

The external ones were all fancy like "Principal Architect" and all that.

The internal ones told people inside the company what you _actually_ did.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, being that developer on the team that would embrace build and deployment scripts, means that for the last 30 years, I have always to jungle around, am I a developer, a systems administrator, network engineer, or whatever is fashionable as term for upper management. The worse part of the fashionable job titles is that both management and HR love to put people on little boxes, and generalists are a big heada…

I used to work at a startup during the 2k tech bubble and a coworker had the title "General Specialist" on their business cards. It's something I still aspire to be :)

It's not a great time to be a generalist. Companies want X years of experience with their bespoke tech stack only to even get you in for an interview.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Platform Engineer" has started to grow as a name for pretty much this. An engineer that builds the platform that all things run on. For example, the k8s clusters, the observability stack, has on-call, and builds the internal tools and automations (called the IDP, or internal developer platform).

IDP already has a very important meaning as a part of any platform :)

Yea, it's confusing, i give you that.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#46
post #7

you're going to be the "ops bitch" for the "real" programmers Rachel is spot on about what is often wrong with IT culture; "typecasting" people for someone's convenience or to get a fancy title leads to learned helplessness and dissmissing other people's expertise and interests. I rather we all try to keep things simple and encourage people to be well-rounded engineers.

Yet she keeps calling ops people “monkeys.”

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#47

Ops people are cost centers. They can display their wizardry in blog posts until they are blue in the face, but except for those few companies with an incredibly large moat whose main profit is just raw traffic or high uptime (and how many companies like that can maintain that moat indefinitely anyway), engineers not actually building or directly improving product will always be cost centers. It brings me no joy to s…

That's a heap of tough love. Ultimately indeed, those who pay, decide, and they're taught to systematically cut costs to improve short term profit above all else.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#48

It doesn’t mean anything for two reasons: companies have treated it as a catch—all, and there is a glut of people calling themselves SREs who have never operated a server that wasn’t in a cloud. You can learn enough about Linux to be decent at your job on only VMs if you’re dedicated, but I’d argue that until you’ve also dealt with hypervisors, bare metal, and hardware issues, you’re missing some of the picture. “Tha…

> people calling themselves SREs who have never operated a server that wasn’t in a cloud

Wait. Since when this is a requirement?

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#49

Ops people are cost centers. They can display their wizardry in blog posts until they are blue in the face, but except for those few companies with an incredibly large moat whose main profit is just raw traffic or high uptime (and how many companies like that can maintain that moat indefinitely anyway), engineers not actually building or directly improving product will always be cost centers. It brings me no joy to s…

I’m not scared. We’ve seen the rise of DBRE because all of the ZIRP startups (the ones who survived, anyway) realized they couldn’t just YOLO their way through indefinitely, and that RDBMS is hard, actually. Of course, they couldn’t admit that they needed DBAs, so they invented a title and mixed in SRE so it would seem cool.

I might be in a cost center, but companies will cut this cost center to their own demise.

Re: "SRE" doesn't seem to mean anything useful any more

#50
post #18

It never meant anything outside Google or huge orgs. Everyone else is running cargo cults.

Moreover, they must be cargo cults. An SRE role was my first job at Google in 2006. It was a product of its time and place. Google could hire the sort of full stack programmer/sysadmin types that the article talks about because they had enough clout and desirability at that time that they could get very skilled programmers to give up programming and do sucky on-call work instead. Even then, just two years after IPO a…

Aren't there things we can do to simplify the software stack, so we're more likely to find candidates with all the required skills in one package? There are certainly fashions we can push back against, e.g. premature use of microservices, Kubernetes, and distributed systems in general.
Post reply on HN