ssmoot

77 ms·

571.
by ssmoot 15y ago
Very cool. Been a long time coming, with a lot of blood sweat and tears on your part, but it looks like Rubinius2 is the project I was lusting after those years ago, back when it looked like Sydney was the fix for what ailed Ruby. ;-) Congr
572.
by ssmoot 15y ago
> JRuby as a gateway drug to the Land of Ruby; _could_ end up being VM winner too. I don't get the "could". JRuby is among the fastest, gives you access to a massive amount of OSS and infrastructure, and fixes Ruby's threading. It's don
573.
by ssmoot 15y ago
I didn't say anything about penalizing. Microsoft clearly differentiates versions of SQL Server. That's all I'm asking for. If JRuby performance continues to match or exceed Rubinius performance, but JRuby also gives me deployment flexibili
574.
by ssmoot 15y ago
Obviously great news. It dampens my enthusiasm a bit to know the same company funds development of JRuby however. EngineYard really should clarify their vision behind maintaining two VMs. Going beyond the obvious "JRuby is for integration w
575.
by ssmoot 15y ago
> 5GB...well, yeah, I can see a lot of people hitting that one. Will be interesting to see if they quietly increase this over time to keep most users under the limit, like Gmail. I'd bet they don't. iDisk is only 10GB, and that costs $9
576.
by ssmoot 15y ago
That's weird because a lack of SoC is probably my biggest pet peeve with 99% of the Ruby code available, including the Rails source. Other than that, sure RoR can be a nice introduction to MVC. But Monorail was a much cleaner framework from
577.
by ssmoot 15y ago
"This is avoidable, if you do your job well." That's awfully snarky. And I doubt many developers have the authority to overcome systems issues. Even if it were possible to compensate programmatically, it may justifiably count against you if
578.
by ssmoot 15y ago
Thanks for the syntax help. It's been awhile. ;-) For anyone curious, here's an old article on the interface I'm talking about: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/shorten-development-time... Just so you don't think you have to memorize t
579.
by ssmoot 15y ago
ORMs are fun to write. ;-) I don't think they're necessarily misguided. DataMapper made efforts to circumvent the N+1 problem, in most cases probably pretty effectively. Partial Updates are also pretty easy. Slamming every field into ever
580.
by ssmoot 15y ago
That's a non-sensical statement. Stored Procedures are always parameterized. It's the only way to pass in arguments. What I'm talking about is a special stored-procedure called sp_executesql. It takes varargs for parameters and executes you
581.
by ssmoot 15y ago
This is the old Microsoft Misinformation. Stored Procedures are not faster. SQLBooksOnline actually has this information clear as day, but MS Evangelists like Rob Howard (went on to create Teligent) would go around spouting the "sprocs are
582.
by ssmoot 15y ago
CLR, JVM... what's the third?
583.
by ssmoot 15y ago
At that scale, MAYBE . In the last two years my workplace has gotten pretty good at handling SAN outages (due to terrible Oracle equipment). Put simply, this set of scenarios can't happen at my work-place. We don't have that level of autom
584.
by ssmoot 16y ago
Maybe I was being overly sensitive. I do think you could've got your point across as easily without naming names though, or scrubbing the email to protect the "innocent". Since you did name names, I doubt any amount of compliments would avo
585.
by ssmoot 16y ago
So he needed to be more sincere but less personal, and it can't have a hint that your name was just substituted in? That's an awfully high bar considering the next guy is going to complain that the email that suits you takes itself too seri
586.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I got bored and wrote one for Ubuntu: http://pastie.org/1837350 I didn't try it, but probably pretty close to working. It does more than some people might want, but I didn't write it for the pedants in the crowd. ;-)
587.
by ssmoot 16y ago
It seems like a nice project. I like that you don't need to know a particular programming language to use it. The way you define services feels a bit awkward though. Also, it seems like install.sh scripts for various platforms would lower t
588.
by ssmoot 16y ago
Don't get me wrong. I love runit. Simple and effective. Runs on all my deployments, which is a lot nicer than rc scripts for FreeBSD (which isn't really comparable anyway), Upstart for Ubuntu, this for this and that for that. Consistency is
589.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I don't suppose you have any hints for getting runit installed/running on FreeBSD? There's a runit port, but it doesn't auto-start that I've been able to figure out and I never have found any real documentation on it. Back to Cast though, t
590.
by ssmoot 16y ago
So the actual process management stuff is built on top of runit? Is this a Linuxey only sort of thing or are FreeBSD/OpenBSD/OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana invited to the party?
591.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I don't think I am getting it no. You don't think ZFS is the problem? So you aren't calling ZFS a "crappy solution"? Just the DAS usage? What is your gripe exactly then? The overblown critique of networked storage? Well we agree on that
592.
by ssmoot 16y ago
You're over-simplifying. Amazon provides power, servers, bandwidth and their network. You still need administrators and ops people. If you colo, your data-center will provide power and bandwidth. You just need your cabinet network and the s
593.
by ssmoot 16y ago
They "lean on ZFS" for DAS. Seriously. You tell me. What does that have to do with your rant on ZFS? It could have as well been an LSI controller doing RAID6. Or mdadm. Doesn't matter. That's the evolved solution they came up with. The "net
594.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I work at a small shop who was badly burned by Sun/Oracle. :-) It's not that I believe in overprovisioning I think. It's that if data is really that critical, and it's availability is critical, then that has to be taken into account during
595.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I think you'd be surprised at how much better/cheaper you could have done it in house. Given proper motivation (say 20c bonus on every dollar saved) I think we'd see this argument vanish pretty quickly. If you listen to the wrong people (sa
596.
by ssmoot 16y ago
Distraction to whom? The developers (everyone) in a two-person startup? Sure. In a mature business with 50 employees? In an organization of that size do you really want your development team driving IT decisions (and budget)?
597.
by ssmoot 16y ago
ZFS is just the FS. But you know that already. The SAN solutions they migrated to are not ZFS based. Unless I'm mis-remembering (I read this a couple days ago) they were only using ZFS to slice LUNs. Point is, you're taking pot-shots at ZFS
598.
by ssmoot 16y ago
I don't know how NFS keeps coming up. It's an entirely different use case. It doesn't help the credibility of a critique on networked block storage to harp on a vendor specific implementation of a technology that doesn't even operate in the
599.
by ssmoot 16y ago
That's actually this post (the fallacies link). :-) And you make a good argument about handling read errors. In practice that's not what high availability is about though, and it's certainly not what we're talking about with AWS, iSCSI or e
600.
by ssmoot 16y ago
That's an odd thing to say. Internal networks can easily be more reliable than applications given that higher end equipment has a lot more money poured into it at a development level, and anything above the bottom end of the market typicall

More ›