That hasn't been our experience. Our elasticsearch cluster has been a pain in the ass since day one with the main fix always "just double the size of the server" to the point where our ES cluster ended up costing more than our entire AWS bill pre-ES. (but that might be our limited experience) whereas something like postgres has required nearly 0 maintenance apart from adding the occasional index but even that has been just due to tuning, not that the DB fell over.
Both are AWS hosted products (RDS, AWS Elasticsearch).
Easiest database to scale is a pretty low bar. Databases are typically really hard to scale and Elasticsearch is no exception. Aside from the issue of ease, one thing that has been universally true for me is that Elasticsearch is incredibly expensive to scale in terms of compute costs.
Elasticsearch has built in horizontal scaling abilities, unlike Postgres/other SQL databases. It also has integrations with cloud providers for peer discovery, or can use DNS. Once a new data node is detected and reachable, the masters will start sending it shards of data, distributing the load. This all happens without any user intervention. I can't really speak to cost, it is somewhat easy to blow up the memory usage in Elastic for sure, but I can't say its been more expensive than similarly sized Postgres clusters.
Right, GB for GB ES is much easier to scale than Postgres (or any other DB) but probably also more expensive since ES is much more memory and compute hungry. But I can't say I have an apples-to-apples comparison since the use case for ES is usually "dump massive amounts of raw data in and index everything" which you wouldn't typically do with a Postgres instance. But in places where we have run large ES clusters my experience has not really been that it works without any user intervention (at least once you reach a certain scale) and that it involved a lot of operational support. Not that any other solution with comparable features would have been easier necessarily but still not easy in any absolute sense.
I go hilariously out of my way to eliminate elasticsearch at any org I join. Usually because it's only being used for logs and modern tools like loki are immeasurably easier to scale and cheaper to run. But I also find many many developers using it don't know about time series databases or anything at all about which data structures go in which kind of database and just dump everything into a horrifically organized search database. Its at least one order of magnitude worse to scale and operate than a mongo-type nosql database being used incorrectly by a developer who doesn't know any better and two orders of magnitude worse than a sql database being used incorrectly by a developer who doesn't know any better.
Loki's fine if you are very cost sensitive and are comfortable with Prometheus, but it's not really a replacement for a text-search database like Elasticsearch. It also scales about the same, both being horizontally scalable (I'm not sure what Loki's sharding strategy is). Our ELK stack runs on 3 2cpu/8gb ram nodes totaling about $160 a month and can handle 50+ million of records or so (I haven't ran it to its absolute limit). This is a comfortable price to performance ratio for us and I imagine many other companies.
I think people that have issues scaling any modern distributed data stack are because a) Don't have experts or b) Bad practices/stretching the use case. I worked on a project once where the ES cluster performance was degrading because they kept increasing the number of fields. At some point, they had more than 5k for a single document schema even though ES docs mention going over the limit (1k) is not a good idea. I mean if any of these big tech companies can manage clusters of hundreds of nodes for any of these data stacks I'm sure your scaling issues aren't because of the tool.
Easy/hard is depending on the experience of the user. Someone with a lot of experience with Elasticsearch will have a easy time scaling Elasticsearch and hard time scaling Kafka, and vice-versa.
Better to compare how complex they are to scale in terms of actions required.
Agreed, though solar tech has gotten a lot better and cheaper in the last 20 years, so it's not completely fair to compare. Power storage is still an issue, but this is getting better and better each year with the prices of lithium iron phosphate batteries coming way down.
> I'm a bit irate with the usual flow of discussions about WebAssembly here on HN that take this claim for granted and regurgitate it incessantly.
It is still more honest to regurgitate the claim that Wasm is faster than JS than to try and argue that "JS is about 10x faster than wasm in simple linear regression."
Yeah this is a turnoff for me. I get that I could compile it myself but since the authors clearly don't want that, I'd rather just put my money into tools I know will work.
Diet sodas to me taste awful, but lately I've been putting a single packet of Equal in my coffee with some vanilla and it tastes great. Lord knows I can cut out the sugar wherever possible.
I love Rust the language, and the community is generally good, but for whatever reason modern identity politics has always been looming around its key members. Maybe just because it spun out of Mozilla and the Brendan Eich debacle, who knows.
I'm not seeing any connection between the linked discussions and identity politics, and I'm certainly not seeing any connection with Brendan Eich. Hopefully not every thread that involves reference to a CoC has to automatically turn in to a grievance bin for people who have a bone to pick with identity politics.
It's actually the opposite. In a repeat of what happened previously in the NPM community, people are asking for the CoC to actually be enforced _because of_ identity politics, rather than associating CoCs with identity politics.
Going around saying things like "Kill all men" is just about as obvious as a CoC violation can get.
Additionally, having members of the same governance body that are romantically involved probably isn't very effective strategically.
"The core team refused to kick out a misandrist member" would lead to a lot of drama if they said it publicly. If that is why they are quitting then it makes sense that they refused to say anything about it.
It's not like she would be the first or the only team member with rather controversial political views. As long as these views don't meaningfully impact her work on Rust, why shouldn't she be on the team? Why can't we just learn to be more tolerant of dissenting views?
Well, then there's the other accusation: that she applied for a job at Amazon and was rejected and since then her partner, also a part of the core team, has been publicly negative about the relationship between Rust and Amazon (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513130)
There would seem to be a massive conflict of interest there, if true.
> It's not like she would be the first or the only team member with rather controversial political views. As long as these views don't meaningfully impact her work on Rust, why shouldn't she be on the team? Why can't we just learn to be more tolerant of dissenting views?
The link goes into detail about her effect on wasm-pack, the official Rust wasm project. Her personal views and behavior at npm aside, this alone should be enough to remove her from being part of Rust in any official capacity. I guess being in a relationship with Steve Klabnik has its benefits.
I didn't said that she should get expelled, however since the moderation team cannot do their job to enforce the CoC when such blatant violations goes unpunished it makes sense for them to disband the moderation team. Why have a moderation team if it is just for show?
We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.
And the first line from the Moderation section of that same document:
Remarks that violate the Rust standards of conduct, including hateful, hurtful, oppressive, or exclusionary remarks, are not allowed.
It's not just that it's a controversial political view -- it's a clear violation of the first rule of participating in the community. It's rules for thee but not for me.
If you're a man, I don't see how it would be possible to feel safe or welcome in _any_ association with the Rust community when a prominent Core team member is advocating for you to be killed.
It's like saying that Hitler's position on Jews is just a controversial political view.
The second link in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28515306) includes multiple alleged statements that are about identity politics. One example being: "saying incredibly horrible sexist and racist things such as 'kill all men', and actively trying to prevent white men from speaking at tech conferences" Which seems to be connected to identity politics.
I encourage everyone to read the actual links in that post. I'm in no way associated with any party, but the links that supposedly give evidence for specific statements are not as clear cut as it's made out to be.
E.g. with respect to the wasm-pack both sides have reasonable arguments in the thread how I read it.
With respect to unsubstantiated accusation, that very post makes accusations of nepotism without any proof.
This seems to be a case of one person who's said some things that pretty much everyone would regard as inappropriate and potentially offensive (probably regardless of where they stand on CoCs or their views regarding identity politics). I see no evidence of a connection between this person and the resignation of the Rust Moderation Team.
I'd also add that making white men feel unwelcome in an open source software project is very hard work. I am a white man, and would not for a moment feel uncomfortable about trying to contribute to node or Rust because of the indelicate mode of expression of this one individual.
If the core team took her side even though she said those inappropriate and offensive things then it makes sense that the Rust Moderation team felt that they couldn't do their job and resigned because of it. Note that she is a part of the core team.
As you can see this sub thread is just speculation from the first post. The evidence are the links provided in the posts above and the rest is speculation how that could potentially related to what happened today.
