3 ms·
I think you should have started this discussion by disclosing you work at Google... > One of the vanishingly small set of issues At your scale, this attitude
by belter 2y ago
I think you should have started this discussion by disclosing you work at Google...
> One of the vanishingly small set of issues
At your scale, this attitude is even more concerning since the rare event at scale is not rare anymore.
- joshuamorton 2y agoI think you're abusing the saying "at scale, rare events aren't rare" (https://longform.asmartbear.com/scale-rare/ https://longform.asmartbear.com/scale-rare/ etc.) here. It is true that when you are running thousands of machines, events that happen rarely happen often, but that scale usually becomes relevant at thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of things (https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive...). That concept is useful when the scale of things you have is the same order of magnitude as the rate of failure. But we clearly don't have that here, because even at scale, these events aren't common. Like I said, there have been, across all cloud providers, less than a handful over a decade. Like, you seem to be proclaiming that these kinds of events are common and, well, no, they aren't. That's why they make the top of HN when they do happen.