4 ms·

A simple single node is often more reliable than a complex fault-tolerant setup. Fewer moving parts mean fewer broken pieces. Similar with security. A simple m

A simple single node is often more reliable than a complex fault-tolerant setup. Fewer moving parts mean fewer broken pieces. Similar with security. A simple monolith is more secure than isolated front- and backend.

martinald 4y ago
Agreed entirely for most. I have seen so many insanely complicated and eye wateringly expensive architectures for what are simple web apps on the big clouds. Often the team don't really understand the intricacies of all these services and how they interrelate which causes often cause a lot of stability problems. Even if they don't, there is usually a huge tax on developer productivity with these architectures, which often outweighs any improved stability over the long term. Let's keep in mind that modern hardware and software is very stable, generally.
- jamesfinlayson 4y ago
  Agreed - I worked for a company with 30 people dedicated entirely to managing the mess they'd created in AWS - and their AWS account manager somehow managed to keep convincing them to use more and newer AWS services to dig them in even further.
- danjac 4y ago
  People talk about resume-driven development, which is definitely a factor, but there's also fear-driven development - you have a hunch the architecture could be a lot simpler and cheaper, but you don't want to make any criticism in case the others in your team think you are technically ignorant, inexperienced, out of touch etc.
- Zvez 4y ago
  >Let's keep in mind that modern hardware and software is very stable, generally Not at any significant scale. dimm will fail, power will be down, disks will need replacement. It is all about risks after all. If you are ok to have couple of hours of downtime if one of the memory sticks stops working - good for you. But generally any large enough business won't tolerate such risks. I'm not saying that the cloud is the answer, but I don't see any future for single instance solution. And if you design your system like this, you are taking much more risks than necessary.
simplotek 4y ago
> A simple single node is often more reliable than a complex fault-tolerant setup. ...except when your single piece breaks and you get your whole service down. Then what?
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Cluster the node?
- xupybd 4y ago
  You get it back up and running quickly because it's so simple and easy to deploy a new server and load the backups on to it.

martinald 4y ago

Agreed entirely for most. I have seen so many insanely complicated and eye wateringly expensive architectures for what are simple web apps on the big clouds. Often the team don't really understand the intricacies of all these services and how they interrelate which causes often cause a lot of stability problems. Even if they don't, there is usually a huge tax on developer productivity with these architectures, which often outweighs any improved stability over the long term. Let's keep in mind that modern hardware and software is very stable, generally.

jamesfinlayson 4y ago
Agreed - I worked for a company with 30 people dedicated entirely to managing the mess they'd created in AWS - and their AWS account manager somehow managed to keep convincing them to use more and newer AWS services to dig them in even further.
danjac 4y ago
People talk about resume-driven development, which is definitely a factor, but there's also fear-driven development - you have a hunch the architecture could be a lot simpler and cheaper, but you don't want to make any criticism in case the others in your team think you are technically ignorant, inexperienced, out of touch etc.
Zvez 4y ago
>Let's keep in mind that modern hardware and software is very stable, generally Not at any significant scale. dimm will fail, power will be down, disks will need replacement. It is all about risks after all. If you are ok to have couple of hours of downtime if one of the memory sticks stops working - good for you. But generally any large enough business won't tolerate such risks. I'm not saying that the cloud is the answer, but I don't see any future for single instance solution. And if you design your system like this, you are taking much more risks than necessary.

simplotek 4y ago

> A simple single node is often more reliable than a complex fault-tolerant setup. ...except when your single piece breaks and you get your whole service down. Then what?

faeriechangling 4y ago
Cluster the node?
xupybd 4y ago
You get it back up and running quickly because it's so simple and easy to deploy a new server and load the backups on to it.