3 ms·
>> can save bad engineering Depends on how "bad". I've seen _many_ counterexamples, where no amount of lipstick could fix the underlying flaws. What good is a
by m0zg 7y ago
>> can save bad engineering
Depends on how "bad". I've seen _many_ counterexamples, where no amount of lipstick could fix the underlying flaws. What good is a pretty website if it's slow, or if it doesn't work at all half the time.
- Aeolun 7y agoI see this fixed all the time by throwing more resources at it. Case in point, all servers were configured to accept a maximum of 5 connections, so when the load balancer got more than x concurrent requests, they started failing. Instead of fixing the problem, we can just scale the amount of servers (horizontal scalable yay), until the problem goes away. Now you have tons of 8GB/4C machines sitting (almost) idle, and immense amount of money wasted.
- AlchemistCamp 7y ago> Instead of fixing the problem, we can just scale the amount of servers (horizontal scalable yay), until the problem goes away. This works if the bad engineering causes a linear increase in scaling costs. If the bad engineering causes an N! increase or a 2^N increase in scaling requirements, then there's a good chance all the servers on the planet aren't enough. I'd say engineering is no easier to fix by throwing money at it than UX is.
- the-rc 7y agoUntil you eventually run out of connections on the DB... And all the workarounds that ensue.
- Aeolun 7y agoDon’t worry, we have a REST service for that too!