3 ms·

The major difference between the examples you mention and Windows Update is that your examples are _failures_ while Windows Update is considered a feature. I us

The major difference between the examples you mention and Windows Update is that your examples are _failures_ while Windows Update is considered a feature. I usually don't "apply router failures" while I do apply updates to Windows. When was the last time a switch just restarted to apply updates? i do not dislike Windows Update but I want to control it and apply things that are convenient to me.

jiggawatts 4y ago
> When was the last time a switch just restarted to apply updates? When it's updated by a network team. It's a semi-regular occurrence in many workplaces. Windows Update is not forced upon Server editions. It can be scheduled at will by administrators. This complaint is the equivalent of saying that Linux is terrible because an admin scheduled "sudo apt-get update" to run on every node of a cluster at the same instant. Why would admins running updates concurrently be a failure of Windows, but not a failure of Linux? I seriously don't get this complaint, ESPECIALLY because the article makes it clear that: 1. The fault was in RabbitMQ, because I quote: "The default partition handling strategy is ignore which means to just enter the partitioned state and keep trucking along in this “split brain” mode thereby thrusting your cluster in to total chaos." [1] 2. Windows update wasn't inherently at fault: "The fix for Windows update was the ensure that nodes in the cluster are patched at different times." I bet the default partition configuration setting of RabbitMQ is also wrong when running on Linux, and the behaviour would be identically bad if an admin scheduled updates to run concurrently on all cluster nodes. [1] That's clown-shoes programming, which is why I'm never using RabbitMQ for anything ever. I've only heard bad things, like "the default settings result in corruption and data loss."
- anonymousDan 4y ago
  I don't know, in many settings that is a valid configuration. For me it is the responsibility of any person deploying such a distributed system to understand a priori how the system will behave in the event of a network partition. If you don't know and/or you're not sure it's something you need to worry about then that's on you.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    I don't know how to say this politely, but simply put: No. You can never, ever rely on people being infinitely knowledgeable and vigilant. Any attempt to do so is simply showing ignorance and indifference by yourself. An unmarked pit in the middle of the road is a hazard. Sure, drivers in theory ought to be vigilant of such things, but fundamentally the fault is with the construction crew for not leaving out bright orange markers. The default should be safe. The default should not be to optimised to win benchmarks to benefit the few, but to provide guarantees to provide for the many. But the few have power, and power corrupts.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      I think I actually have even more responsibility because the expert is someone who is groggy, maybe hung over, and just got woken up abruptly by a page at 3am. Hell, half the time that person is me.
RamRodification 4y ago
> i do not dislike Windows Update but I want to control it and apply things that are convenient to me. There's a lot of valid criticism for Windows Update but I don't think this is one of them (anymore?). Part of being a system administrator dealing with Windows Server is managing updates through WSUS or something else. If that's your responsibility and Windows Servers unexpectedly "just restart" then you are not qualified for that job. Maybe switching to Linux servers solely because of how updates are applied is reasonable. Personal preference is absolutely reason enough. But I think reaching the same level of customization+automation for updates there requires similar amounts of knowledge and time spent.
smileybarry 4y ago
Windows Update on Windows Server ships in manual mode. You choose which updates to install, when to install, and when to restart. Having a server reboot on you unexpectedly is because either (1) you turned on automatic updates yourself or (2) you're running a server on a Windows client SKU, e.g.: Windows 10.

jiggawatts 4y ago

> When was the last time a switch just restarted to apply updates? When it's updated by a network team. It's a semi-regular occurrence in many workplaces. Windows Update is not forced upon Server editions. It can be scheduled at will by administrators. This complaint is the equivalent of saying that Linux is terrible because an admin scheduled "sudo apt-get update" to run on every node of a cluster at the same instant. Why would admins running updates concurrently be a failure of Windows, but not a failure of Linux? I seriously don't get this complaint, ESPECIALLY because the article makes it clear that: 1. The fault was in RabbitMQ, because I quote: "The default partition handling strategy is ignore which means to just enter the partitioned state and keep trucking along in this “split brain” mode thereby thrusting your cluster in to total chaos." [1] 2. Windows update wasn't inherently at fault: "The fix for Windows update was the ensure that nodes in the cluster are patched at different times." I bet the default partition configuration setting of RabbitMQ is also wrong when running on Linux, and the behaviour would be identically bad if an admin scheduled updates to run concurrently on all cluster nodes. [1] That's clown-shoes programming, which is why I'm never using RabbitMQ for anything ever. I've only heard bad things, like "the default settings result in corruption and data loss."

anonymousDan 4y ago
I don't know, in many settings that is a valid configuration. For me it is the responsibility of any person deploying such a distributed system to understand a priori how the system will behave in the event of a network partition. If you don't know and/or you're not sure it's something you need to worry about then that's on you.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  I don't know how to say this politely, but simply put: No. You can never, ever rely on people being infinitely knowledgeable and vigilant. Any attempt to do so is simply showing ignorance and indifference by yourself. An unmarked pit in the middle of the road is a hazard. Sure, drivers in theory ought to be vigilant of such things, but fundamentally the fault is with the construction crew for not leaving out bright orange markers. The default should be safe. The default should not be to optimised to win benchmarks to benefit the few, but to provide guarantees to provide for the many. But the few have power, and power corrupts.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    I think I actually have even more responsibility because the expert is someone who is groggy, maybe hung over, and just got woken up abruptly by a page at 3am. Hell, half the time that person is me.

RamRodification 4y ago

> i do not dislike Windows Update but I want to control it and apply things that are convenient to me. There's a lot of valid criticism for Windows Update but I don't think this is one of them (anymore?). Part of being a system administrator dealing with Windows Server is managing updates through WSUS or something else. If that's your responsibility and Windows Servers unexpectedly "just restart" then you are not qualified for that job. Maybe switching to Linux servers solely because of how updates are applied is reasonable. Personal preference is absolutely reason enough. But I think reaching the same level of customization+automation for updates there requires similar amounts of knowledge and time spent.

smileybarry 4y ago

Windows Update on Windows Server ships in manual mode. You choose which updates to install, when to install, and when to restart. Having a server reboot on you unexpectedly is because either (1) you turned on automatic updates yourself or (2) you're running a server on a Windows client SKU, e.g.: Windows 10.