2 ms·

Intuitively I like this -- hits all the good buzzwords and has a ton of good things going for it. I was especially impressed that they're possibly heading towar

Intuitively I like this -- hits all the good buzzwords and has a ton of good things going for it. I was especially impressed that they're possibly heading towards a Simian Army situation. To me this is the only logical way to deploy infrastructure in a modern setting. I'd sure like to look under the hood, though. Most interesting was "...Deploying Kubernetes in a highly available configuration on AWS is not for the faint of heart and requires you to get familiar with its internals, but we are very pleased with the results..." Wonder how much pain and suffering there was getting this to where they wanted it. The only part I was concerned about was 150 microservices so early in the game, moving to message queuing while still very small, and the RPC/locking stuff. Smells like over-engineering. But hey, I'm not there. There's a ton of stuff that goes into making decisions like that. Thanks for the story!

collyw 10y ago
"hits all the good buzzwords" You see that as a good thing?
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Not by itself. By itself it would be counter-indicative. But assuming good intent, I felt the buzzword-compliance indicated an understanding of the deeper issues involved. It's a difficult situation. I don't want to spend all day reading an article defending CoreOS. But if you throw that buzzword out, I'm assuming you've had some good discussions about your OS selection and could provide that depth if needed. Same for the others. They're not right or wrong choices, but I'm assuming they're there not because the team wanted to be trendy, but because there was real architectural need. If we're discussing architecture, by necessity we're going to have to skim over a lot of stuff. I was okay that given the team's desire to prevent a single point of failure that the pieces listed worked towards that goal. It's very easy to put too much stuff into a system. It's also very easy just to do trendy stuff without thinking through the consequences. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise -- and at the end of my comment I was clear about what some of my concerns were.

collyw 10y ago

"hits all the good buzzwords" You see that as a good thing?

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Not by itself. By itself it would be counter-indicative. But assuming good intent, I felt the buzzword-compliance indicated an understanding of the deeper issues involved. It's a difficult situation. I don't want to spend all day reading an article defending CoreOS. But if you throw that buzzword out, I'm assuming you've had some good discussions about your OS selection and could provide that depth if needed. Same for the others. They're not right or wrong choices, but I'm assuming they're there not because the team wanted to be trendy, but because there was real architectural need. If we're discussing architecture, by necessity we're going to have to skim over a lot of stuff. I was okay that given the team's desire to prevent a single point of failure that the pieces listed worked towards that goal. It's very easy to put too much stuff into a system. It's also very easy just to do trendy stuff without thinking through the consequences. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise -- and at the end of my comment I was clear about what some of my concerns were.