3 ms·
It seems to me that Heroku has chosen to be dishonest: Heroku's blog response: "but until this week, we failed to see a common thread among these reports." vs
by azarias 14y ago
It seems to me that Heroku has chosen to be dishonest:
Heroku's blog response:
"but until this week, we failed to see a common thread among these reports."
vs.
Adam's response to Tim Watson, a year ago:
"You're correct, the routing mesh does not behave in quite the way described by the docs. We're working on evolving away from the global backlog concept in order to provide better support for different concurrency models, and the docs are no longer accurate. The current behavior is not ideal, but we're on our way to a new model which we'll document fully once it's done."
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/heroku/8eOosLC5nrw/Xy2j7GapebIJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/heroku/8eO...
- btilly 14y agoIt is quite possible to know that the mesh is not exactly as documented without having realized that the difference has a severe performance impact.
- azarias 14y agoI think they also addressed the performance issue in addition to saying it is not documented: "...evolving away from the global backlog concept in order to provide better support for different concurrency models"
- btilly 14y agoThe fact that a year later, performance for their starting use case had not been addressed says that they failed to address the performance issue. It is still not clear to me that they actually really understood the performance issue, or how big it was going to be.