2 ms·
It's a totally valid rant, and one that I enthusiastically agree with. I work in adtech (apologies). We have maybe 10 - 15 instances (16 vCPUs, 31GB RAM) that
by secondcoming 6y ago
It's a totally valid rant, and one that I enthusiastically agree with.
I work in adtech (apologies). We have maybe 10 - 15 instances (16 vCPUs, 31GB RAM) that each handle 10k+ HTTP requests per second. There's a push to dockerise all this. I don't see the point.
I've often wondered about the potential performance loss of Dockerising all this, do you have public numbers available? We recently hired a ex-Googler to a management position who claims that on GCP, running docker may actually perform better than VMs. If true, that's really interesting, but I can't find anything to back it up.
Code optimisation (or even profiling) seems to be a dying art since people think that it's easier to just throw CPUs at the problem.
- rubber_duck 6y agoWell it should be faster if you're replacing the VM layer and running docker on top of bare metal kernels, in theory you could use a cheap dedicated hosting provider to host a K8S cluster and probably outperform a managed cloud offering price and performance wise - but in practice this shit is so unreliable I would never want to be the guy on call maintaining this - they would need to pay me a lot more than the delta between managed cluster and bare metal. For non-critical computationally expensive stuff like analytics and BI it could make sense.
- secondcoming 6y agoThey wouldn't be bare-metal, they're managed GCE instances