3 ms·

…wow. Did you even read what they wrote?

than3 5y ago
Yes, I read what was published by Lichess and the other person. If by 'they' you are referring to Lichess (I'm assuming you were since my post speaks for itself), the published report has holes and doesn't account for the reported site-wide service interruption that occurred some time earlier before they were forced to suspend the tournament. Specific holes include, there isn't a timeline with any kind of useful supporting documentation or detail (metrics, logs between services) etc. The graph that was provided is worthless beyond showing a correlative spike in traffic when the issue became noticeable. It does not inform the cause in any practical way other than to say there was an issue at some point before the spike which culminated in an outage. They carefully don't mention any useful, supporting, or practical detail about the architecture, logging, load shedding, etc, that would support that what they say is what happened. They say it wasn't overloaded, when it was clearly resource constrained. In my opinion the communication is an assurance article, a table with no legs. We can only guess at what happened, unless they share more specific details. Also, annoyingly, they say load testing and simulation can't be done at that scale. It can, but to get usable results that accurately model and inform, requires competent engineering and resources. It is not simple, but neither is it beyond the pale either.
- evanrelf 5y ago
  Hey than3, I think IggleSniggle's comment[1] about "not reading what they wrote" was replying to Shadonototra's comment[2], not yours. So "they" is you; IggleSniggle is questioning whether Shadonototra read your comment. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656928 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656251
  - than3 5y ago
    Ahh thanks, it had looked like a reply to me and not the other guy. Indirect pronouns can be troublesome. Dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle.
- dmurray 5y ago
  > Also, annoyingly, they say load testing and simulation can't be done at that scale. They don't say this at all. What they say is extremely reasonable: > Even simulating events at this scale is not easy Your misinterpretation of this does not inspire confidence in the rest of the uncharitable things you've said about them.

Yes, I read what was published by Lichess and the other person. If by 'they' you are referring to Lichess (I'm assuming you were since my post speaks for itself), the published report has holes and doesn't account for the reported site-wide service interruption that occurred some time earlier before they were forced to suspend the tournament. Specific holes include, there isn't a timeline with any kind of useful supporting documentation or detail (metrics, logs between services) etc. The graph that was provided is worthless beyond showing a correlative spike in traffic when the issue became noticeable. It does not inform the cause in any practical way other than to say there was an issue at some point before the spike which culminated in an outage. They carefully don't mention any useful, supporting, or practical detail about the architecture, logging, load shedding, etc, that would support that what they say is what happened. They say it wasn't overloaded, when it was clearly resource constrained. In my opinion the communication is an assurance article, a table with no legs. We can only guess at what happened, unless they share more specific details. Also, annoyingly, they say load testing and simulation can't be done at that scale. It can, but to get usable results that accurately model and inform, requires competent engineering and resources. It is not simple, but neither is it beyond the pale either.

evanrelf 5y ago
Hey than3, I think IggleSniggle's comment[1] about "not reading what they wrote" was replying to Shadonototra's comment[2], not yours. So "they" is you; IggleSniggle is questioning whether Shadonototra read your comment. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656928 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656251
- than3 5y ago
  Ahh thanks, it had looked like a reply to me and not the other guy. Indirect pronouns can be troublesome. Dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle.
dmurray 5y ago
> Also, annoyingly, they say load testing and simulation can't be done at that scale. They don't say this at all. What they say is extremely reasonable: > Even simulating events at this scale is not easy Your misinterpretation of this does not inspire confidence in the rest of the uncharitable things you've said about them.