4 ms·

What does a local cache even mean at Googles scale though? Some of the cache nodes are likely closer to Sourcehuts servers than to Google HQ. I guess local woul

What does a local cache even mean at Googles scale though? Some of the cache nodes are likely closer to Sourcehuts servers than to Google HQ. I guess local would mean here that Google pays for the traffic. But then it is not a technical problem, but a "financial" one. If you disregard the question who pays for a moment and only look at what makes sense for the "bits", the stateless architecture seems not so bad. Just a pity that in reality somebody else has to foot the bill.

politician 4y ago
Are you serious? Google Cloud Storage is a service that Google sells to folks using its cloud. If they can't use it for their own project, that would be shocking, no?
- captainmuon 4y ago
  They are probably already using something like GCS to store the data at the cache nodes. I was not talking about how the nodes store data, but about a central cache. Purely architecture wise, it doesn't make sense to introduce a central storage that just mirrors Sourcehut (and all other Git repositories). Sourcehut is already that central storage. You would just create a detour. It's also not an easy problem. If the cache nodes try to synchronize writes to the central cache, you are effectively linearizing the problem. Then you might as well just have the one central cache access Sourcehut etc. directly. But then of course you lose total throughput. I guess the technically "correct" solution would be to put the cache right in front of the Sourcehut server.
  - politician 4y ago
    Go's Proxy service is already a detour for reasons of trust mentioned in the article. They are in a position to return non-authentic modules if necessary (e.g. court order). That settles all architecture arguments about sources-of-record vs sources-of-truth. The proxy service is a source of truth. If Google is going to blindly hammer something because they must have their Google scale shared nothing architecture pointed at some unfortunate website, then they should deploy a gitea instance that mirrors sr.ht to Google Cloud Storage, and hammer that. It's unethical to foist the egress costs onto sr.ht when the solution is so so simple. Some intern could get this going on GCP in their 20% time and then some manager could hook the billing up to the internal account.

politician 4y ago

Are you serious? Google Cloud Storage is a service that Google sells to folks using its cloud. If they can't use it for their own project, that would be shocking, no?

captainmuon 4y ago
They are probably already using something like GCS to store the data at the cache nodes. I was not talking about how the nodes store data, but about a central cache. Purely architecture wise, it doesn't make sense to introduce a central storage that just mirrors Sourcehut (and all other Git repositories). Sourcehut is already that central storage. You would just create a detour. It's also not an easy problem. If the cache nodes try to synchronize writes to the central cache, you are effectively linearizing the problem. Then you might as well just have the one central cache access Sourcehut etc. directly. But then of course you lose total throughput. I guess the technically "correct" solution would be to put the cache right in front of the Sourcehut server.
- politician 4y ago
  Go's Proxy service is already a detour for reasons of trust mentioned in the article. They are in a position to return non-authentic modules if necessary (e.g. court order). That settles all architecture arguments about sources-of-record vs sources-of-truth. The proxy service is a source of truth. If Google is going to blindly hammer something because they must have their Google scale shared nothing architecture pointed at some unfortunate website, then they should deploy a gitea instance that mirrors sr.ht to Google Cloud Storage, and hammer that. It's unethical to foist the egress costs onto sr.ht when the solution is so so simple. Some intern could get this going on GCP in their 20% time and then some manager could hook the billing up to the internal account.