@aphyr Options: 1. Make design flaws. 2. Make the same shitty, well understood, designs. Over and over. 3. Or blaze a new novel solution.
-
-
Replying to @damienkatz
@damienkatz Ah yes, the "Redis Sentinel" solution. http://aphyr.com/posts/283-call-me-maybe-redis …4 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @aphyr
.
@damienkatz Maybe worth mentioning that every data-loss issue I've found through Jepsen could have been solved by reading the literature.8 replies 21 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @damienkatz
.
@damienkatz Of the 8 systems I've analyzed with Jepsen that invented their own replication, all 8 failed to provide safety or liveness.2 replies 24 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @aphyr
.
@damienkatz I'm gonna need a counterexample before I start telling people to ignore the distsys literature when designing systems.2 replies 4 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @damienkatz
I don't see why
@aphyr is picking on@damienkatz - Damien is taking the pragmatic approach.4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bitemyapp
@bitemyapp@aphyr@damienkatz Simple testing frameworks to validate/test new designs. See flaws in design or code. Less theory. More do.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @inthecloud247
@inthecloud247@aphyr@damienkatz sliiiiide right on out2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@bitemyapp @aphyr @damienkatz would be a great goal to simply encourage 'less flawed' designs and prevent architecture disasters.
-
-
Replying to @inthecloud247
@inthecloud247@aphyr@damienkatz (pls go away)0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.