4 ms·
I read once that every developer ought to use 'kill -9' as their method of stopping services they are writing, then ensure that doing so never causes a problem.
by SoftwareMaven 16y ago
I read once that every developer ought to use 'kill -9' as their method of stopping services they are writing, then ensure that doing so never causes a problem. Even if you can keep people from executing 'kill -9' (hint: you can't), there are always cases that you can't control that can stop a box in its tracks. By developing explicitly for this, you save you and your customer a lot of pain.
Honestly, I would never use a database that doesn't make safeguarding my data as its number one priority. Even if I'm just dumping logs in it, the time I really need to know what's going on is likely the time those safeguards are put to the test.
- steveklabnik 16y agoAre you thinking of Fail-fast software? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-fast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-fast
- wmf 16y agohttp://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/candea/candea_html/ http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/candea...
- po 16y agoIt was briefly mentioned in the article, but this is exactly how couchdb shuts down: On-disk, CouchDB never overwrites committed data or associated structures, ensuring the database file is always in a consistent state. This is a “crash-only” design where the CouchDB server does not go through a shut down process, it’s simply terminated. http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/overview.html http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/overview.html (Please, no mongodb vs. couchdb wars here)
- agazso 16y agoThis is exactly how all databases work. Well, except for MongoDB ;)
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoI think that is actually where I read it. It must have resonated internally and became the topic (in my mind).