3 ms·

Related piece from another Fowler: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html

by krosaen 13y ago

beat 13y ago
I love that article. Now I use the term "snowflake server" all the time as a blunt criticism, and I find it's really sinking in on the management and ops people who hear it. Great analogy.
mwcampbell 13y ago
I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, the phrase "snowflake server" encapsulates my observations about long-lived servers that are upgraded and extended in place. On the other hand: "Perfect replication is the enemy of any robust system." -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Suarez http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Suarez (read the other quotes from the same chapter for context)
- tome 13y ago
  But this "immutable infrastructure" idea doesn't mean that the infrastructure is perfectly replicated across machines. It aims for perfect replication through time. That's something quite different.
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    You have a point. Indeed, the practice of building specialized machine or container images, which seems to be the best way of achieving immutable infrastructure, may make servers more heterogeneous, since each image will contain only the pieces necessary to perform its specific function. Done right, immutable infrastructure may be more resilient in the face of parasites.
KevinEldon 13y ago
And also PhoenixServer: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/PhoenixServer.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/PhoenixServer.html
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  I like the concept. But where I work, our infrastructure is currently hosted on leased dedicated servers, where (last time I checked) OS reloads require manual intervention from the hosting provider and cost something. So I guess the burning down and rebuilding would have to be done on a layer above the base OS, e.g. Docker containers.

Related piece from another Fowler: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html

by krosaen 13y ago

Related piece from another Fowler: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SnowflakeServer.html

beat 13y ago

I love that article. Now I use the term "snowflake server" all the time as a blunt criticism, and I find it's really sinking in on the management and ops people who hear it. Great analogy.

mwcampbell 13y ago

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, the phrase "snowflake server" encapsulates my observations about long-lived servers that are upgraded and extended in place. On the other hand: "Perfect replication is the enemy of any robust system." -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Suarez http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Suarez (read the other quotes from the same chapter for context)

tome 13y ago
But this "immutable infrastructure" idea doesn't mean that the infrastructure is perfectly replicated across machines. It aims for perfect replication through time. That's something quite different.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  You have a point. Indeed, the practice of building specialized machine or container images, which seems to be the best way of achieving immutable infrastructure, may make servers more heterogeneous, since each image will contain only the pieces necessary to perform its specific function. Done right, immutable infrastructure may be more resilient in the face of parasites.

KevinEldon 13y ago

And also PhoenixServer: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/PhoenixServer.html http://martinfowler.com/bliki/PhoenixServer.html

mwcampbell 13y ago
I like the concept. But where I work, our infrastructure is currently hosted on leased dedicated servers, where (last time I checked) OS reloads require manual intervention from the hosting provider and cost something. So I guess the burning down and rebuilding would have to be done on a layer above the base OS, e.g. Docker containers.