btrask

29 ms·

301.
by btrask 11y ago
You can't squat trademarks. You can use trademark claims to get domain names from people who aren't using them legitimately, including trying to sell them. We could make domain name registration work the same as trademark registra
302.
by btrask 11y ago
Write amplification is not the only thing that matters. For small keys, higher write amplification is a good tradeoff for doing less seeks (which yes, are still a performance problem on SSDs, probably because of the block size). For large k
303.
by btrask 11y ago
In b-trees, there is an inherent tension in choosing a page size (or base). Larger pages are good for reads because of the higher branching factor (which is why we don't use binary trees). Smaller pages are good for random writes becau
304.
by btrask 11y ago
I think you're backwards. Random writes are LSM trees' forte because they can batch them. Sequential writes would be doable with a b-tree.
305.
by btrask 11y ago
It's true that LevelDB has a lot of drawbacks, including its complexity (making reliability problems much more likely). However, I think Howard Chu is way too pessimistic about (I'd say biased against) LSM-trees. I wrote an LSM-tr
306.
by btrask 11y ago
Does this apply to every DSL?
307.
by btrask 11y ago
I wish they would stop with the new features and get their security under control.
308.
by btrask 11y ago
RocksDB has the same problems as LevelDB (uses large numbers of file descriptors, considerable read overhead compared to LMDB), plus it's even more complex and harder to configure. I had high hopes for the LSM tree from SQLite4[1], but
309.
by btrask 11y ago
We definitely need more and better low level key-value stores, especially write-optimized ones. It sounds like InfluxDB has correctly identified the pain points with LevelDB and LMDB, but it's yet to be seen whether they've succee
310.
by btrask 11y ago
Doug emailed me personally to follow up with this. Couldn't be happier!
311.
by btrask 11y ago
Thanks to the developers for LibreSSL and libtls. I'm using both in an application I'm working on. I've been meaning to post on the mailing list, but I have some requests I guess I'll try here: - For libtls, accept custo
312.
Gnu Compiler Collection Warning Options(gcc.gnu.org)
1 points by btrask 11y ago|0 comments
313.
by btrask 11y ago
Oh darn!
314.
by btrask 11y ago
Hey Jeff, I had to double check because I couldn't believe this was you. I'm a big fan of the Jeff and Casey Show! The problem with doing custom allocation is not specifically due to bugs in the allocator per se, but because your
315.
by btrask 11y ago
Cool, I'm looking forward to it.
316.
by btrask 11y ago
If `foo` doesn't own `buf`, it should be declared `char * const` (or `char const * const`). If `foo` takes owner ship of `buf` (and is intended to free it), it should take a pointer to the pointer to clear it for the caller. This is on
317.
by btrask 11y ago
It's usually penny wise, pound foolish.
318.
by btrask 11y ago
Thanks for for the comment. I'm the author of the article. I'd really appreciate some more specific feedback, particularly the parts that you think are dangerous or "not even wrong." I'll take a look at the Silver S
319.
by btrask 11y ago
You're right, and that statement was poorly worded. If you check my project, I use plain char, which is signed on most platforms. The benefit of using unsigned char for binary data is the same, but the compiler warnings won't help
320.
by btrask 11y ago
Hey Howard, thanks for the feedback. That's a good point that I hadn't really run into (probably depends on personal debugging style). I still think keeping error handlers small is worth it, but I will mention that tradeoff.
321.
by btrask 11y ago
Great comment. Another aspect is that you can only rent space (hosting, domains, connection, etc.) on the internet, you can never own it. If you have a landlord they can kick you out, but if you own your own place then you have a much great
322.
by btrask 11y ago
We need more and better warning options, and more of them to be enabled by default (use -Wall -Wextra -Werror, please!). I have nothing against PVS-Studio but I think promoting static analyzers will actually do more harm than good in the lo
323.
by btrask 11y ago
Rather than de facto URNs, I'd say de facto URLs, but we don't have to quibble over that. I'm on the east coast, unfortunately (North Carolina). HN is going to start capping the thread depth, but you're welcome to email
324.
by btrask 11y ago
Sorry, I didn't know Magnet was your work. I think it's an example of the inner-platform effect (tunneling URIs in URIs), but I agree it's served a lot of applications (especially BitTorrent) very well. You're right that
325.
by btrask 11y ago
For what it's worth, I consider this a feature. There have been proposals to make sha1: and other schemes, but every system will need hash agility (as better algorithms are invented and flaws are found in old ones). A single system sho
326.
by btrask 11y ago
Great points, you've clearly read the RFCs. :) - You're right that URNs were not just for ISBNs, but they shaped the formation of the standard and (IMHO) made it inapplicable for hashing. A content addressing system that can&#x2
327.
by btrask 11y ago
I believe there is a fundamental distinction between URI schemes that are dynamic but centralized (meaning they require some form of coordination, to handle mutability), versus schemes that are static and decentralized (for example, they ar
328.
by btrask 11y ago
This is the secret sauce that makes every implementation unique. Camlistore, IPFS, StrongLink (my project), and others all have different answers. I think the important thing is that they all use hash URIs that can interoperate. Then you ca
329.
by btrask 11y ago
Here's what I've written up for a toy content addressing system I've been writing in Python: "If it's so easy, why did it take us 3 years and 10,000 lines?" "Because we wrote it in C." And because the
330.
by btrask 11y ago
I'm happy to answer any questions about this article or the implementation I've put together.

More ›