annacappa · HackerTrans

So all of this ram is being used and is only accessed sporadically if at all. This is not good. Sounds like you could implement the entire thing on a micro db instance (redis or a regular db) with no raft or any other custom implementation or messing.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

The more I think about it the worse it gets.

Because we don’t want everything to fall over when one machine goes down we need at least 3 machines (for raft). So if our traditional db would have 500 GB of data we now need 3 machines with 500 GB of ram running at all times. That is an epic waste of money. Millions per year to run ? And you could store it in a db for a couple of dollars.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

It’s great that people explore new ideas. However this does not seem like a good idea.

It claims to solve a bunch of problems by ignoring them. There are solid reasons why people distribute their applications across multiple machines. After reading this article I feel like we need to state a bunch of them.

Redundancy - what if one machine breaks either a hardware failure a software failure or a network failure (network partition where you can’t reach the machine or it can’t reach the internet)

Scaling- what if you can’t serve all of your customers from one machine ? Perhaps you have many customers and a small app or perhaps your app can use a lot of resources (maybe it loads gigs of data)

Deployment - what happens when we want to change the code and not go down if you are running multiple copies of your app you get this for cheap

There are tons of smaller benefits - right sizing your architecture What if the one machine you choose is not big enough you need to move to a new machine, with multiple machines you just increase the number of machines. You also get to use a variety of machine sizes and can choose ones that fit your needs so this flexibility allows you to choose cheaper machines

I feel like the authors don’t know why people invented the standard way of doing things.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

But zero back to back winners since 2000.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

So you’ve heard of mansplaining before, I’m guessing quite a few times.

Here is a suggestion. Read the comment the other person states and then engage with it instead of attempting to use it as a jumping off point for your post.

And btw, luck does not disappear over 10k hands. The final table at the wsop has not been static.

Since 2000 when hold’em poker became popular nobody has repeated back to back wins. If it was a game of skill we would expect the best player to keep winning.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

I’m an expert poker player.

What I said was 100% correct and didn’t need a bunch of extra unrelated stuff.

I’m making a fundamental point about randomness and poker which you are failing to understand. Stop and try to understand for a second instead of launching into mansplaining.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

I programmed and ran a bot that played on real money sites.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

I do and I play duplicate bridge, a game that has taken the luck out of a card game. I just like poker theory - I ran a bot for years - and I just don’t like variance that much and I guess I like the game for the strategy more than who has the most chips at the end, although obviously without the hazard it’s not anywhere as entertaining

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

The reason poker is a successful game is because bad players can win. Otherwise why would a person who was bad at the game stake any money at all. Personally I would rather take the luck out of it and attempt to normalize (perhaps by playing duplicate hands) but I imagine it would be quite boring for non poker nerds and therefore non lucrative for everyone.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

This French dude has been doing it for years. At least 2021.

annacappa

2 anni fadiscuss

For the confused about the headline here is another article that explains the concept

https://www.theregister.com/2012/07/31/firework_up_bottom_to...

comments