3 ms·
That’s implied by the post context, and doesn’t resolve the clickbait nature of the missing “Why”. A more correct title would be: “Turning on HTTP/2 increased
by floatingatoll 8y ago
That’s implied by the post context, and doesn’t resolve the clickbait nature of the missing “Why”. A more correct title would be:
“Turning on HTTP/2 increased request burstiness, breaking our application”
- otterley 8y agoIt’s not even clear that it broke their application. They simply didn’t allocate enough compute resources to it AFAICT.
- floatingatoll 8y ago"Broke" is commonly used to describe an interruption in application service to end users. If one enables HTTP/2 and production goes down, someone could quite rightly point out that "you performed action A, causing impact B, which broke the app". Determining in root cause analysis that impact B stemmed from underprovisioned peak demand compute resources in no way contradicts the usage of "broke".
- otterley 8y agoThat’s not usually the way the term is used internally in practice when you exhaust your capacity, in my experience. It’s more typically used when sites start crashing or returning invalid data due to bugs in the software.
- judge2020 8y agoInternally, no. When dealing with incident response, you would not just say "http2 broke it", but as a quick way to describe the issue, it's fair to say "http2 broke our application" as it prevented access to the service.
- zimpenfish 8y agoIn my experience (adding 25 years of anecdata to the pile) running out of capacity which leads to interruptions in service to users will quickly get you a lot of emails about things being "broke" from both users and internal teams.