▲ | TacticalCoder a day ago | |
> People seem to get stuck on mantras that simple things are inherently fragile which isn't really true... Ofc it isn't true. Kubernetes was designed at Google at a time when Google was already a behemoth. 99.99% of all startups and SMEs out there shall never ever have the same scaling issues and automation needs that Google has. Now that said... When you begin running VMs and containers, even only a very few of them, you immediately run into issues and then you begin to think: "Kubernetes is the solution". And it is. But it is also, in many cases, a solution to a problem you created. Still... the justification for creating that problem, if you're not Google scale, are highly disputable. And, deep down, there's another very fundamental issue IMO: many of those "let's have only one process in one container" solutions actually mean "we're totally unable to write portable software working on several configs, so let's start with a machine with zero libs and dependencies and install exactly the minimum deps needed to make our ultra-fragile piece of shit of a software kinda work. And because it's still going to be a brittle piece of shit, let's make sure we use heartbeats and try to shut it down and back up again once it'll invariably have memory leaked and/or whatnots". Then you also gained the right to be sloppy in the software you write: not respecting it. Treating it as cattle to be slaughtered, so it can be shitty. But you've now added an insane layer of complexity. How do you like your uninitialized var when a container launchs but then silently doesn't work as expected? How do you like them logs in that case? Someone here as described the lack of instant failure on any uninitialized var as the "billion dollar mistake of the devops world". Meanwhile look at some proper software like, say, the Linux kernel or a distro like Debian. Or compile Emacs or a browser from source and marvel at what's happening. Sure, there may be hickups but it works. On many configs. On many different hardware. On many different architectures. These are robust software that don't need to be "pid 1 on a pristine filesystem" to work properly. In a way this whole "let's have all our software each as pid 1 each on a pristine OS and filesystem" is an admission of a very deep and profound failure of our entire field. I don't think it's something to be celebrated. And don't get me started on security: you know have ultra complicated LANs and VLANs, with a near impossible to monitor traffic, with shitloads of ports open everywhere, the most gigantic attack surface of them all and heartbeats and whatsnots constantly polluting the network, where nobody doesn't even know anymore what's going on. Where the only actual security seems to rely on the firewall being up and correctly configured, which is incredibly complicated to do seen the insane network complexity you added to your stack. "Oh wait, I have an idea, let's make configuring the firewall a service!" (and make sure to not forget to initialize one of the countless var or it'll all silently break and just be not be configuring firewalling for anything). Now though love is true love: even at home I'm running an hypervisor with VMs and OCI containers ; ) | ||
▲ | lmm 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> Meanwhile look at some proper software like, say, the Linux kernel or a distro like Debian. Or compile Emacs or a browser from source and marvel at what's happening. Sure, there may be hickups but it works. On many configs. On many different hardware. On many different architectures. These are robust software Lol no. The build systems flake out if you look at them funny. The build requirements are whatever Joe in Nebraska happened to have installed on his machine that day (I mean sure there's a text file supposedly listing them, but it hasn't been accurate for 6 years). They list systems that they haven't actually supported for years, because no-one's actually testing them. I hate containers as much as anyone, but the state of "native" unix software is even worse. | ||
▲ | marcus_holmes 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
+1 for talking about attack surface. Every service is a potential gateway for bad people. Locking them all down is incredibly difficult to get right. 99.99% of startups and SMEs should not be writing microservices. But "I wrote a commercial system that served thousands of users, it ran on a single process on a spare box out the back" doesn't look good on resumes. | ||
▲ | Moru 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
I sense a lot of painful insights written in blood here. |