3 ms·
Yeah, I guess I am. It's adding whole layers of complexity and configuration to the system. I understand that those layers of complexity and configuration are d
by marcus_holmes 6y ago
Yeah, I guess I am. It's adding whole layers of complexity and configuration to the system. I understand that those layers of complexity and configuration are designed to make the system more resilient, but it depends on everyone getting everything right all the time. The "screw-up surface" is huge.
- topkeks 6y agoWow, Google should hire you to tell them that they're doing it all wrong!
- base698 6y agoEver seen a large system that has it's own job server and scripts for orchestration/deployment? Application code that checks the status of it's peers and runtime env to determine what should run? All glued together with decades old perl and bash with no documentation. I'll take "more configuration in yaml" over that.
- marcus_holmes 6y agothat's not a 1:1 comparison though. Leave your nice clean K8s deployment paradise to cruft up for decades, and will it be any better? I doubt it - there'll be old Dockerfiles and weird bits of yaml that shouldn't work but do, and upgrading a version of anything will break random things. So yes, I think I would prefer the decades of crufty perl and bash to decades of crufty outdated yaml. At least the bash scripts have a hope of doing what they say they do, and are likely to still execute as intended.