4 ms·
As I said, it's a silly example just to highlight an extreme. In between there are more fluid examples. I don't think it's that ridiculous to propose destroying
by lukeschlather 7y ago
As I said, it's a silly example just to highlight an extreme. In between there are more fluid examples. I don't think it's that ridiculous to propose destroying and recreating the cluster in its entirety when you're deploying a new node image. However as you say I'm not sure anyone would advocate that except in specific circumstances.
On the other hand, while my suggestion of doing it to add a node sounds ridiculous I'm sure there are circumstances in which it's not only understandable but necessary, due to some aspect of the system.
- wpietri 7y agoI'm saying it's not even an extreme, in that I don't believe what people are calling "immutable infrastructure" includes that. If your biggest objection to an idea is that you can make up a silly thing that sounds like it might be related, I'm not understanding why we need to have this discussion. I'd like to focus on real issues, thanks.
- lukeschlather 7y agoI'm not objecting categorically to anything. I think that immutable infrastructure is a spectrum, and depending on your needs you may have just about everything immutably configured, or almost nothing. I just don't think it's so black and white as "you should always use immutable infrastructure." I also think it's a cool idea to destroy the entire cluster just to add a node, and it sounds ridiculous but also like there's some circumstances where it makes perfect sense.
- wpietri 7y agoAgain, do you have a citation for the notion that it's a spectrum? The original post that coined the term doesn't talk about it that way, and neither do the other resources I found in a quick search. As I see it, it's binary: when you need to change something on a server, you either tinker with the existing server or you replace the server with a fresh-built one that conforms to the new desire.