iscoelho

10 ms·

121.
by iscoelho 2y ago
from an operations point of view, I am surprised anyone likes Raft. I have yet to see any application implement Raft in a way that does not spectacularly fail in production and require manual intervention to resolve. CRDTs do not have the s
122.
by iscoelho 2y ago
not just about cost! improved performance/latency can make workloads that previously required a local SSD/NVME to be actually able run to run on distributed storage or an object store. it can not be understated how slow Ceph&#x2
123.
by iscoelho 2y ago
You know FOSS software runs most of the internet right? (and, if you'll believe it, AWS internally) I would find it completely unsurprising to see Garage used in some capacity by a Fortune 500 by the end of the year (not that they&#x27
124.
by iscoelho 2y ago
Considering their 1.1.1.1/32 advertisement was a RTBH (Remotely triggered blackhole), it is likely they advertised the route automatically as a result of DDoS. It is common for ISPs to blackhole (nullroute) an IP address that is experi
125.
by iscoelho 2y ago
RPKI/ROA does not solve BGP hijacking [1]: "Even with RPKI validation enforced, a BGP actor could still impersonate your origin AS and advertise your BGP route through a malicious router configuration." It also would not have
126.
by iscoelho 3y ago
This is expected. Like cloud providers, Cloudflare is intentionally not aggressive on pricing as it is a race to the bottom. There are other ways to compete.
127.
by iscoelho 3y ago
My comment is not making any claims about that. It's just a correction that filesystems with "81k 1KB files" are indeed common.
128.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Not that rare at all. Take a full disk zip/tar of any Linux/Windows filesystem and you'll encounter a lot of small files.
129.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Ditto. This is a board for hackers, engineers, programmers, founders, and related - yet there's threads like this that fail to understand one of the simplest concepts of business taxation? I am lost. I don't understand Hacker News
130.
by iscoelho 3y ago
A lot of telecoms avoid it like the plague because: 1. it destroys network observability 2. they have so much IP space they don't even know what to do with it. /30 everything! Management networks are a different story, but hey, so
131.
by iscoelho 3y ago
It's implied in my message that I'm referring to the internet: "It is unroutable, because no route exists on the internet."
132.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
133.
by iscoelho 3y ago
As demonstrated by a majority of Fortune 100 companies (including google.com & microsoft.com), the industry accepted solution to this is an enterprise domain registrar, for example MarkMonitor or CSC. A disproportionate amount of the in
134.
by iscoelho 3y ago
I understand why this is a common issue, but I also believe that this is indicative of organizational dysfunction. It takes a few seconds to document what a domain is used for / what department is using it. If you have 5,000 domains, y
135.
by iscoelho 3y ago
If you can't trust a team to set a calendar reminder / create a ticket to renew a domain once a year ... what exactly can you trust them with? The only excuse I would understand is turn-over. Otherwise, I would say that the orga
136.
by iscoelho 3y ago
I'm familiar with CGNAT mostly on Cellular Networks. VZW (debatably largest CGNAT in USA?) uses RFC6598. I'd be surprised (but not too surprised honestly) if the other ones haven't cleaned up the skeletons in their routers ye
137.
by iscoelho 3y ago
I would argue that this shows weaponized incompetence from IT and is indicative of larger organizational issues.
138.
by iscoelho 3y ago
This is not correct. RFC6598 defines CGNAT IP space as 100.64.0.0/10 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598 ). RFC1918 (private IP space) is a different allocation.
139.
by iscoelho 3y ago
This is not a correct assumption. 1. RFC1918 space is not "filtered". It is unroutable, because no route exists on the internet. 1a. Effectively, this is the same result, however it is still an important distinction to note: telec
140.
by iscoelho 3y ago
> If nothing else, they should be placated by the fact that upgrades are significantly worse in every other ecosystem. A lot of ecosystems care about their users and care about compatibility. Java is a toxic relationship at this point.
141.
by iscoelho 3y ago
> There is absolutely no indication about this having any impact of significance on the performance in the ecosystem at large. You seem to be really averse to evidence. In my opinion, the JEP should have benchmarks. It does not have any.
142.
by iscoelho 3y ago
> No. JDK 9 and 11 kept all default accessibility the same as in JDK 8 (all you got was a warning) until it was changed in JDK 16: https://openjdk.org/jeps/396 This is simply not true. This sounds like gaslighting i
143.
by iscoelho 3y ago
No. JDK9/JDK11's adoption issues were due to --add-opens/--add-exports and the JDK developers hostile approach towards reflection. It's an obsession over "pure" code that has no basis in reality. I'm sorry
144.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Citation needed. You make a lot of claims without evidence. Dropbox's experience https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/lossless-compression-wit... shows a >10% performance difference caused by bounds checks in a
145.
by iscoelho 3y ago
This is a false premise. We know today how performance will be affected by this. Java developers didn't just start using Unsafe for fun. They use Unsafe because they benchmarked, measured, and found a real performance gain. There is
146.
by iscoelho 3y ago
> I don’t think it’s relevant here, the JIT compiler can do the same optimizations here. Correct. I was clarifying that the issue can be replicated in a "simpler" statically compiled benchmark. > If the branch predictor can
147.
by iscoelho 3y ago
These explicit checks are basically what I mean by "convincing the compiler" (and sometimes, it isn't quite convinced!) - Yeah. Not fun at all. Especially in Java, because "the assembly" can change as the JIT evolve
148.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Keep in mind that the "11%" applies to the fully implemented Brotli compression algorithm. Bounds-checks are a small part of that. If you write a micro-benchmark for only bounds-checks, you'd see the larger difference more in
149.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Java today is used and works fine for many high performance applications.
150.
by iscoelho 3y ago
Perf impact due to bounds checks can be experienced in statically compiled languages as well (like Go/Rust). Although branch predictor improvements likely narrow the gap, they do not eliminate it. Code cache is not completely relevant

More ›