Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong about GPUs

fly.io

401–410 of 604 posts

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#401
post #266
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And system calls and filesystems and sockets and LVM and... Sure at some point there are too many layers to count but I wouldn't say any of this is "Kubernetes". What people tend to be hung about is the difficulty of Kubernetes compared to `docker run` or `docker compose up`. That is what I am surprised about. I never had any issue with kubelet, or kube-proxy, or CSI plugins, or CNI plugins. That is after years of ru…

But you just said that you had issues with ceph? How is that not a CSI problem? And CNI problems are extremely normal. Pretty much anyone that didn't just use weavenet and called it a day has had to spend quiet a bit of time to figure it out. If you already know networking by heart it's obviously going to be easier, but few devs do.

Because CSI is just a way to connect a volume to a pod.

Ceph is its own cluster of kettles filled with fishes

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#402
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …and containerd and csi plugins and kubelet and cni plugins (...) Do you understand you're referring to optional components and add-ons? > and kubectl You mean the command line interface that you optionally use if you choose to do so? > and kube-proxy and ingresses and load balancers… Do you understand you're referring to whole classes of applications you run on top of Kubernetes? I get it that you're trying to mak…

How’s kubelet and cni are “optional components”? What do you mean by that?

kubelet isn't, but CNI technically is (or can be abstracted to minimum, I think old network support might have been removed from kubelet nowadays)

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're willing to spend a lot of (usually their employer's) money May just be my naïveté, but I thought that something like ECS or EKS is much cheaper than an in-house k8 engineer.

If you don’t have staff to do that, you probably aren’t at the scale when you need them, and you’re needlessly adding complexity. It’s always baffling to me why people think that ECS or god forbid EKS is somehow easier than a few Linux boxes.

I've set up and run my own physical Linux server as well as cloud ones and it may be easier to get a Linux box up and running with an application but to get it into a state I consider production ready it's much harder. With ECS (or similar offerings, I agree kubernetes can be overkill) you get logging, blue green deployments, permissions, secret management, scaling, and more built in. You don't need to worry about upgrading your server and there's a whole category of security issues you don't really need to worry about. I work in a space with some compliance requirements and I do not think we could meet them at the size that we are without offerings like this.

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's an (increasingly small) group of software developers who don't like "magic" and want to understand where their code is running and what it's doing. These developers gravitate toward open source solutions like Kubernetes Kubernetes is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "understanding where their code is running and what it's doing"...

One may think Kubernetes is complex (I agree), but I haven't seen alternative that simultaneously allows to: * Host hundreds or thousands of interacting containers across multiple teams in sane manner * Let's you manage and understand how is it done in the full extent. Of course there are tons of organizations that can (and should) easily resign from one of these, but if you need both, there isn't better choice right…

But how many orgs need that scale?

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#405
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. Single threaded execution more or less stops at 2 GHz and has remained there. 2012-2022 - no one notices single threaded is stalled because everything moves to VMs in the cloud Single Thread execution, I assume you mean IPC or may be more accurately as PPC ( Performance Per Clock ) has improved steadily if you accounted for ARM design and not just x86. That is why M1 was so surprising to everyone because most (all…

The most surprising thing about M1 was the energy efficiency and price/performance point they hit. It had been known for a couple of years that the phone SOCs were getting really good, just that being passively cooled inside a phone case only allows them 1-2 seconds of max bursts.

Apple's chips are dramatically faster than any other kind. If you are single thread perf constrained and have the money, running workloads on Apple silicon can actually make sense.

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#406

I have a timeline that I am still trying to work through but it goes like this : 2012 - moores law basically ends - nand gates do t get smaller just more cleverly wrapped. Single threaded execution more or less stops at 2 GHz and has remained there. 2012-2022 - no one notices single threaded is stalled because everything moves to VMs in the cloud - the excess parallel compute from each generation is just shared out i…

> 2012 - moores law basically ends - nand gates do t get smaller just more cleverly wrapped. Single threaded execution more or less stops at 2 GHz and has remained there.

A 2GHz core from a 2012 is extremely slow compared to a 2GHz core of a modern CPU. The difference could be an order of magnitude.

There is more to scaling CPUs than the clock speed. Modern CPUs process many more instructions per clock on average.

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#407
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that "container" and "process" are pretty similar abstractions. A lot of people don't realize this, but a container is sort of just a process with a different filesystem root (to oversimplify). That arguably is what a process should be on a server.

No, they are not. I'm not sure who started this whole container is just a process thing, but it's not a good analogy. Quite a lot of things you spin up containers for have multiple processes (databases, web servers, etc). Containers are inherently difficult to sum up in a sentence. Perhaps the most reasonable comparison is to liken them to a "lightweight" vm, but the reasons people use them are so drastically differe…

> Containers are inherently difficult to sum up in a sentence.

Super easy if we talk about Linux. It's a process tree being spawned inside it's own set of kernel namespaces, security measures and a cgroup to provide isolation from the rest of the system.

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried auto tab discard?

Not the person you replied to but auto discard only helps so much. Even with it on I often use 80-90% memory (albeit on Windows, not sure if macOS is any different in this regard).

Firefox here too, no such problems. I do however run Google services in a separate browser (Brave or Chromium) because most of them hog the Firefox browser. For example running earth.google.com on FF is... a very special experience. :-/

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#409
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's an (increasingly small) group of software developers who don't like "magic" and want to understand where their code is running and what it's doing. These developers gravitate toward open source solutions like Kubernetes Kubernetes is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "understanding where their code is running and what it's doing"...

Great opportunity for someone ballsy to write a book about kubernetes internals for the general engineering population. Bonus points for writing a basic implementation from first principles capturing the essence of the problem kubernetes really was meant to solve. The 100 pages kubernetes book, Andriy Burkov style.

Kubernetes in Action book is very good.

Re: We were wrong about GPUs

#410
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious about what sort of business stores and processes 14 PB on a 60 node cluster.

Yeah, that's an interesting question, because it sounds like a ton of data vs not enough compute, but, aside from this all being in a SAN or large storage array: The larger Supermicro or Quanta storage servers can easily handle 36 HDD's each, or even more. So with just 16 of those with 36x24TB disks, that meets the ~14PB capacity mark, leaving 44 remaining nodes for other compute task, load balancing, NVME clusters,…

We have boxes with up to 45 drives yes.
Post reply on HN