4 ms·

If we're defining "engineering excellence" as the craziest, most amazing thing you can possibly build, then the SR-71 absolutely qualifies. So do top fuel drags

If we're defining "engineering excellence" as the craziest, most amazing thing you can possibly build, then the SR-71 absolutely qualifies. So do top fuel dragsters (though obviously the SR-71 was way more difficult to achieve). What I meant by "not engineering excellence" was in relation to the original post, comparing how to manage production servers with the SR-71. Nobody should regularly operate their servers like an SR-71 or top fuel dragster. It's great to fly really really fast, but most people should probably not be doing that, because it requires making exceptions like leaking fuel. You actually want to run your server like a big slow complicated comfortable redundant jumbo jet on autopilot. Hopefully you get my meaning. I apologize if I made their accomplishments seem minor. I meant no insult against the Skunkworks engineers or the SR-71, and your response was not harsh at all.

Spooky23 8y ago
Engineering is ultimately all about solving problems. Operational consistency at acceptable cost is an important problem that the 777 or a LAMP reference infrastructure provides. The SR-71 solved a different problem — people at the top of the chain of command lacked information, and the potential impact was devastating. Delivering information at any cost was critically important, and that operational cost and the risks associated with operations were high!
Animats 8y ago
Yes, the SR-71 was a remarkable achievement. Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works describes the project. It's amazing that thing ever worked. It's not, however, engineering minimalism. It's money is no object R&D. There are many exotic technologies used in the SR-71 never seen before in aviation and seldom used again. Large parts made of Invar, a zero expansion alloy normally used only for watch springs, for example. The price of all this was a high-cost, high-maintenance aircraft. A good plane to look at for production minimalism is the Boeing 747. A huge aircraft even today, it was designed as a commercial product to be produced in quantity and used intensively over a long life. About 1500 were built and many are still flying after 40 years. It's reliable, maintainable, safe, and profitable. It's not exotic. There are some new things in it, but not that many. It's mostly upgrades to technologies known at the time. Better flight controls, better navigation, better autopilot, better hydraulics, better tires, better engines, etc. But little that hadn't flown before at smaller scale. The emphasis was on eliminating the weak points during design. The B-747 has four hydraulic systems, for redundancy. It's worthwhile for people in software to read the pilot's manual for a large commercial jetliner.[1] They're not that complicated. If operating your system is more complicated than a jetliner, you're probably doing something wrong. [1] http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM_727_200_Sim_Copy.pdf http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM...
geezerjay 8y ago
> What I meant by "not engineering excellence" was in relation to the original post, comparing how to manage production servers with the SR-71. Nobody should regularly operate their servers like an SR-71 or top fuel dragster. It's great to fly really really fast, but most people should probably not be doing that, because it requires making exceptions like leaking fuel. You actually want to run your server like a big slow complicated comfortable redundant jumbo jet on autopilot. Engineer here. It appears you've mixed up some pretty basic but unrelated concepts. Engineering projects are based on use case scenarios and design requirements. You've presented your personal and very specific usecases and design requirements and somehow assumed that they were shared by another project or that they even made sense. If your main requirement is performance and all other requirements are minor in comparison then the optimal design wont be a workhorse, but a race horse.
snowwrestler 8y ago
Exceptions from known best engineering practices happen all the time on production servers. Heck, the entire concept of a "NoSQL" key-value database violates best practices for database normalization in pursuit of faster performance. Anyone running MySQL in less than an ACID-compliant configuration? Yes? (Like, almost everyone?)

Spooky23 8y ago

Engineering is ultimately all about solving problems. Operational consistency at acceptable cost is an important problem that the 777 or a LAMP reference infrastructure provides. The SR-71 solved a different problem — people at the top of the chain of command lacked information, and the potential impact was devastating. Delivering information at any cost was critically important, and that operational cost and the risks associated with operations were high!

Animats 8y ago

Yes, the SR-71 was a remarkable achievement. Ben Rich's book about the Skunk Works describes the project. It's amazing that thing ever worked. It's not, however, engineering minimalism. It's money is no object R&D. There are many exotic technologies used in the SR-71 never seen before in aviation and seldom used again. Large parts made of Invar, a zero expansion alloy normally used only for watch springs, for example. The price of all this was a high-cost, high-maintenance aircraft. A good plane to look at for production minimalism is the Boeing 747. A huge aircraft even today, it was designed as a commercial product to be produced in quantity and used intensively over a long life. About 1500 were built and many are still flying after 40 years. It's reliable, maintainable, safe, and profitable. It's not exotic. There are some new things in it, but not that many. It's mostly upgrades to technologies known at the time. Better flight controls, better navigation, better autopilot, better hydraulics, better tires, better engines, etc. But little that hadn't flown before at smaller scale. The emphasis was on eliminating the weak points during design. The B-747 has four hydraulic systems, for redundancy. It's worthwhile for people in software to read the pilot's manual for a large commercial jetliner.[1] They're not that complicated. If operating your system is more complicated than a jetliner, you're probably doing something wrong. [1] http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM_727_200_Sim_Copy.pdf http://www.aviationforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOM...

geezerjay 8y ago

> What I meant by "not engineering excellence" was in relation to the original post, comparing how to manage production servers with the SR-71. Nobody should regularly operate their servers like an SR-71 or top fuel dragster. It's great to fly really really fast, but most people should probably not be doing that, because it requires making exceptions like leaking fuel. You actually want to run your server like a big slow complicated comfortable redundant jumbo jet on autopilot. Engineer here. It appears you've mixed up some pretty basic but unrelated concepts. Engineering projects are based on use case scenarios and design requirements. You've presented your personal and very specific usecases and design requirements and somehow assumed that they were shared by another project or that they even made sense. If your main requirement is performance and all other requirements are minor in comparison then the optimal design wont be a workhorse, but a race horse.

snowwrestler 8y ago

Exceptions from known best engineering practices happen all the time on production servers. Heck, the entire concept of a "NoSQL" key-value database violates best practices for database normalization in pursuit of faster performance. Anyone running MySQL in less than an ACID-compliant configuration? Yes? (Like, almost everyone?)