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

Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

erikbern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 202 posts

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#91

Post by mathgladiator »

pbiggar wrote: post #15

So I'm creating something that's exactly like the author is describing: https://darklang.com He's right that there's no reason that things shouldn't be fully Serverless, and have instant deployment [1]. These are key parts of the design of Dark that I think no one else has managed to solve in any meaningful way. (I'll concede that we haven't solved a lot of other problems had still need to be solved to be usable and…

That's super cool. There is a lot to be said about simple things, and I think the language approach makes a ton of sense.

I'm building a serverless document store with mini-databases using a programming language I designed for board games: http://www.adama-lang.org/

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#92

Post by m_st »

jcelerier wrote: post #86

I'm so happy to just develop desktop apps in C++ / Qt. I commit, I tag a release, this generates mac / windows / linux binaries, users download them, the end.

I'm very happy in the same camp using C# and SQL (though Windows only).

Thank you for making desktop apps.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#93

Post by funcDropShadow »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #88
jiggawatts wrote: post #47

Years and years ago I saw an advertisement by a SAN array vendor where their gimmick was that they supported very cheap read/write snapshots of very large datasets, in combination with a set of transforms such as data masking or anonymisation. Their target market was same as the OP: developers that need rapid like-for-like clones of production. The SAN could create a full VM server pool with a logical clone of hundre…

> Azure's network team decided to unnecessarily use NAT for IPv6, making it exactly (100%!) as complex as IPv4... People like the NAT. It's a feature, not a bug. If your selling point for IPv6 is "no more NAT" then no wonder it never went anywhere! P.S. No, "you're doing it wrong" and "you're not allowed to like the NAT" are not valid responses to user needs.

What do people like about NAT? I am guessing that the perceived increase in security. But perhaps there are more real or perceived advantages.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#94

Post by drinchev »

jcelerier wrote: post #86

I'm so happy to just develop desktop apps in C++ / Qt. I commit, I tag a release, this generates mac / windows / linux binaries, users download them, the end.

There is hardly an app that I use these days that doesn't require internet connection. I guess once your app needs it, you will have the same problems.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#95

Post by jcelerier »

drinchev wrote: post #94
jcelerier wrote: post #86

I'm so happy to just develop desktop apps in C++ / Qt. I commit, I tag a release, this generates mac / windows / linux binaries, users download them, the end.

There is hardly an app that I use these days that doesn't require internet connection. I guess once your app needs it, you will have the same problems.

> There is hardly an app that I use these days that doesn't require internet connection.

well, most of the ones I use (my note taking app, my text editor, my music player, my file manager) don't so YMMV

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#96

Post by bob1029 »

pm90 wrote: post #77
__jem wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but test talks to all production business systems too I'm not sure I understand this, would you mind explaining more? Do you mean you have multi-tenancy in databases and application (the "tenants" being stage/test and prod)?

I think what op’s referring to is a staging app version that talks to production services and databases. Eg you have a “clone” of your production UI, accessible only to devs. This clone is configured to talk to the same DB and call the same dependencies as the production service but since it’s access is limited it’s used by devs to test their new feature(s). This pattern is used where I work too. It’s been incredibly…

Yes. This is essentially the idea.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#97

Post by rswail »

dragonwriter wrote: post #37
XorNot wrote: post #24

Some of this I agree with, even if the overall is to me asking for "magic" (I wouldn't mind trying to get there though). For me the one I really want is "serverless" SQL databases. On every cloud platform at the moment, whatever cloud SQL thing they're offering is really obviously MySQL or Postgres on some VMs under the hood. The provisioning time is the same, the way it works is the same, the outage windows are the…

> Basically, why isn't there just a Postgres-protocol socket I connect to as a user that will make tables on demand for me? No upfront sizing or provisioning, just bill me for what I'm using at some rate which covers your costs and colocate/shared host/whatever it onto the type of server hardware which can respond to that demand. How isn’t RDS Aurora Serverless from AWS, available in both MySQL-and Postgres-compatibl…

Yes and no. Aurora Serverless isn't really "serverless", it's PG or MySQL binary compatible wire protocol with AWS custom storage engine underneath.

Provisioning of the compute part of the database is still at the level of "ACU" which essentially map to the equivalent underlying EC2s. The scale up/down of serverless V1 is clunky and when we tested, there was visible pauses in handling transactions in progress when a scaling event occurred.

There is a "V2" of serverless in beta that is much closer to "seamless" scaling, I assume using things like Nitro and Firecracker under the covers to provision compute in a much more granular way.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#98

Post by dijit »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #88
jiggawatts wrote: post #47

Years and years ago I saw an advertisement by a SAN array vendor where their gimmick was that they supported very cheap read/write snapshots of very large datasets, in combination with a set of transforms such as data masking or anonymisation. Their target market was same as the OP: developers that need rapid like-for-like clones of production. The SAN could create a full VM server pool with a logical clone of hundre…

> Azure's network team decided to unnecessarily use NAT for IPv6, making it exactly (100%!) as complex as IPv4... People like the NAT. It's a feature, not a bug. If your selling point for IPv6 is "no more NAT" then no wonder it never went anywhere! P.S. No, "you're doing it wrong" and "you're not allowed to like the NAT" are not valid responses to user needs.

> "you're not allowed to like the NAT"

Well, the bigger question might be why do they like NAT?

If it's about having a single /128 address so they can do ACLs then that's easily fixed by just lowering the CIDR number. (unless you have an ancient version of fortigate on prem, which likely doesn't work with ipv6 anyway).

If it's about not having things poking at your servers through the NAT then the "NAT" really isn't helping anything, it's the stateful firewall doing _all_ the work there and those things are entirely independent systems. -- They're just sold to consumers as a single package.

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#99

Post by whoisburbansky »

jiggawatts wrote: post #47

Years and years ago I saw an advertisement by a SAN array vendor where their gimmick was that they supported very cheap read/write snapshots of very large datasets, in combination with a set of transforms such as data masking or anonymisation. Their target market was same as the OP: developers that need rapid like-for-like clones of production. The SAN could create a full VM server pool with a logical clone of hundre…

Do you remember the name of the original SAN array provider?

Re: Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist

#100

Post by w7 »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #93
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Azure's network team decided to unnecessarily use NAT for IPv6, making it exactly (100%!) as complex as IPv4... People like the NAT. It's a feature, not a bug. If your selling point for IPv6 is "no more NAT" then no wonder it never went anywhere! P.S. No, "you're doing it wrong" and "you're not allowed to like the NAT" are not valid responses to user needs.

What do people like about NAT? I am guessing that the perceived increase in security. But perhaps there are more real or perceived advantages.

What I find common is people conflate NAT with stateful firewalling, and believe that if you lose NAT you lose all forms of edge/perimeter network security. They don't understand that you can still filter and prevent unwanted packets from reaching hosts without NAT.
Post reply on HN