3 ms·
If you want to collapse just run a system at 100% for baseline, there's no slack, there's no capacity to meet new demands, you're just running a permanent failu
by hilariously 4mo ago
If you want to collapse just run a system at 100% for baseline, there's no slack, there's no capacity to meet new demands, you're just running a permanent failure mode if there's any perturbation in the system.
- xnx 4mo agoEfficiency is the enemy of resiliency.
- bumby 4mo agoThis is only true if you define efficiency as the inverse of redundancy. Sometimes efficiency is gained by reducing waste, not redundancy
- nevdka 4mo agoRedundancy is easy to misclassify as waste, particularly for someone who has incentives to find more ‘waste’ they can cut and claim credit for.
- bumby 4mo agoI would add it's also easy to misclassify when dealing with high-risk, low-probability events. The fact that someone hasn't witnessed something happen in their entire career can lead them to think any mitigation against that event is waste.
- stuxnet79 4mo agoExcept ... the collapse never happens. Once your engineers burn out or age out you just hire fresh meat and the cycle repeats. The issue I have with these types of articles (and books like Peopleware / Slack) is they never provide any actual metrics that may convince the beancounters to try a different approach.
- annoyingnoob 4mo agoAge out?
- hilariously 4mo agoYour systems just continue working at full capacity when all your engineers burn out and you hire new people who know nothing? Huh, that's a new one to me.
- kaikai 4mo agoYour baseline capacity is always lower than it would be with experienced, fully trained, happy engineers. It seems normal because the system doesn’t support anything better.