61–70 of 133 posts
Saturday, I thought: "This guy (PG) is really brave, everybody is nowadays using virtualized server environments on mulit-core machines and PG just gets some bare metal and puts his app on one core and one thread. WTF, this guy is a genius, single-threaded apps on bare metal FTW, this is so great and I am doing this too." After seeing this thing down for several hours -- and Google hate downtimes, they punish you ins…
Saturday, I thought: "This guy (PG) is really brave, everybody is nowadays using virtualized server environments on mulit-core machines and PG just gets some bare metal and puts his app on one core and one thread. WTF, this guy is a genius, single-threaded apps on bare metal FTW, this is so great and I am doing this too." After seeing this thing down for several hours -- and Google hate downtimes, they punish you ins…
What would the benefits of using a virtualized server for a relatively small (in terms of server needs) site like HN be? The way I see it so far, is that virtualization is mostly beneficial for hosting companies that can provide cheaper hosting and have better isolation and easier resource allocation. But I can't think of any big benefits for the site owner, assuming they can afford a dedicated server, and I can see…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you say if Google.com was down for 2 hours due to a server upgrade? Do you pay Google for searching? Bonus points if you do actually. Their search API is limited to 100 a day, which is not a lot.
If you're using google search, you're paying google in ad impressions.
Saturday, I thought: "This guy (PG) is really brave, everybody is nowadays using virtualized server environments on mulit-core machines and PG just gets some bare metal and puts his app on one core and one thread. WTF, this guy is a genius, single-threaded apps on bare metal FTW, this is so great and I am doing this too." After seeing this thing down for several hours -- and Google hate downtimes, they punish you ins…
Apparently it is not out of the woods yet - the comment tab links to the front page.
Seems to be showing the homepage, not redirecting it. I think PG/RTM must have introduced a bug while fixing the problem. Have they no unit tests ;-D ?
Fast is one thing. BUT I'd much rather get rid of the "this link has expired" syndrome. Fast is only impressive if the results are modern.
The superior results from my browser's back button far outweigh the inconvenience of the expired link. I click on a link from the "Ask" front page, reply to the top comment, and my comment appears in the thread. Next I click "back" on my browser and I'm back at the front page of "ask". I do that much more often than I hit an expired link.
HN is not a service, its not a startup trying to get mindshare - its a (luvvie alert) community - and one where the downtime had a known and obvious cause and did not matter - rtm would fix it, I would catch up, I knew this thread would exist and I would still get insight into what is happening 12 hours ahead of everyone else.
I thought I would be more bothered - turns out I am emotionally invested, not emotionally dependant.
To PG et al, good luck with the fixes, and thanks.
Cheers