Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:09:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> Subject: Re: [OT] Is the IT Crowd re-inventing Unix with Virtualization, Docker and Microservices? Message-ID: <1244580891.3760894.1536696544711@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHieY7SsnUAvjbWD00LwWScNy8E3rK6vP0nfTyihWJoSBhW1RA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHieY7SsnUAvjbWD00LwWScNy8E3rK6vP0nfTyihWJoSBhW1RA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
*whispers soothing (ry)zen mantras to Alex and hands him a beer*
OK.... it's not often, but I TOTALLY agree.=C2=A0=20
The very simple thing that needs to happen is education of the unwashed.=C2=
=A0 They don't get it, they don't understand it, they never will so tech pe=
ople give them 'buzzwords'.... What's worse?=C2=A0 There's an entire crowd =
of 'wannabes' that think they can program and therefore understand Operatin=
g Systems and how they work.=C2=A0 NO!=C2=A0 They don't and they need to fi=
gure that out.=C2=A0 Will they?=C2=A0 Most will not.=C2=A0 They will nod an=
d say they do, but they don't.
Do you know how many times I've explained the simplicity of Solaris Zones a=
nd FreeBSD jails to people and how this whole concept of virtualization is =
crap?=C2=A0 Whatever happened to things like 'capacity planning'?=C2=A0 Log=
aggregation?=C2=A0 Heck, syslog does it and you can parse it with any numb=
er of tools.
Look at DevOps... hysterical...=C2=A0 It's an attempt to merge development =
and operations.... Why?=C2=A0 Because of a serious ego by a lot of develope=
rs who seem to think that if they can program a piece of crap, it's the ope=
rations people who 'can't make it work correctly'.=C2=A0 I have been in so =
many DevOps groups and you ask for a show of hands as to who has worked at =
least 5 years in operations.... usually none.=C2=A0=20
What's the issue?:=C2=A0 I was an operations systems engineer, I overheard =
a conversation about 'why storage wasn't working correctly.=C2=A0 It's so s=
low.=C2=A0 Operations must be dropping the ball.'=C2=A0 Being new, I walked=
over and asked what the issue was....=C2=A0 According to their 'design'...=
. RAID 6 on a heavy write I/O volume set.... using:=C2=A0 hardware RAID wit=
h a 256MB cache... on Debian with XFS....=C2=A0 It was even SLOWER than wha=
t you would imagine.... WHY?=C2=A0 They were doing asset tagging via direct=
ory and file creation.....=C2=A0 How?=C2=A0 Well, 0-9, a-z and A-Z except t=
he usual no 'o' 'i' etc....=C2=A0 So, this is what they were doing??=C2=A0 =
Think of a file with data.=C2=A0 It is tagged as:=C2=A0 0a9b8c7d6e5f....z T=
hey created a tree structure where each of the 34 or so characters would ea=
ch have 34 subdirs.... recurse through this until you're at zzzzzzzzz...z.=
=C2=A0 My mouth visibly dropped.=C2=A0 I asked if anyone understood what a =
superblock and i-node were?=C2=A0 What the i-node cache was? etc.... Nothin=
g.... they had no idea that each and every time they ingested a new randoml=
y tagged asset with a ridiculously long path... no filesystem caching was b=
eing done....=C2=A0 (There's a whole story behind this architecture selecti=
on and the subsequent benchmarking I did that showed that ZFS rocks and how=
BSD would solve their security issues along with other issues if I was all=
owed to re-architect....)
It's the matter of more and more layers to simplify the technical simplicit=
y of UNIX so people don't feel inadequate.=C2=A0 Let's make more GUIs, more=
tools, more stuff to suck up machine resources so that the hardware people=
can sell it to the virtualization farms.=C2=A0 There is a level of virtual=
ization that makes sense.... A DEVELOPMENT TOOL.... yes, it was a boon when=
there used to be 10-20 different OSes out there that people were steadfast=
ly on.=C2=A0 Spark up an HP-UX environment and verify your program worked o=
n it... or Solaris... Of FreeBSD...
Should we talk about AGILE?=C2=A0 There's another fun one....=C2=A0 Let's c=
reate an entire mantra of how we should be able to do releases quickly with=
out issue....=C2=A0 gouge the industry with training and buzzwords... (How =
about 'disruptive technology' :) ) until the next way to spin 'proper devel=
opment of the software life cycle' is done.
It's all very, very disturbing.=C2=A0 I'm less than 15 years from retiremen=
t.=C2=A0 I can't wait so I can address these issues... :)
P.
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 3:11:17 PM EDT, Alejandro Imass <aimass=
@yabarana.com> wrote: =20
=20
Hi all,
I guess it's time for another food for thought email of like-minded
FreeBSDers, as I am coming to a new conclusion about this whole enterprise
crap world of which I am so evermore fed up of...
For me it all started with a comment about Theo de Raadt's visionary
comment here, brought to light by Ian Smith in 2017:
https://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3D117621+0+archive/2017/freeb=
sd-questions/20170820.freebsd-questions
At the time I was going through Java / AWS hell so I posted this rant which
was followed up by interesting and diverse commentary:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ml-freebsd-questions/bMlBTj4Xx_Q
And now I have been recently exposed to the pinnacle of enterprise crap:
microservices.
Not saying that they are not a good idea, on the contrary, they are! But is
this all really that new??
So modern-day microservices rely heavily on virtualization (Linux on AWS),
pseudo-virtualization (Docker), and well, the microservices themselves.
They bring on a whole new set of challenges such as log unification
(usually through something like Elastic Search, Log Stash, Kibana, Beats,
etc.), and IPC (through an MQ su as Apache Kafka). Plus a whole new pile of
shit that they are throwing at this microservices "architectures" such as
Hystrix and of course, everyone needs to be "streaming" so they throw in
stuff like Spring Reactor or RxJava, "new" Actor design patterns like Akka
(actually invented in 1973) and well, whatever other thing that Netflix or
Amazon use, then everyone else has got to use them too.
Read any book on the subject and well, cry. Talk about layers and layers,
upon layers and layers of crap, basically to achieve something like, well:
Unix, TCP/IP and HTTP.
So let me breakdown a few of these things so you get what I'm saying:
Reactive Streams: a new FAD designed to handle "back pressure" and vertical
scaling by taking advantage of multi-core CPU's and low-level caching
issues etc. Well, guess what, enterprise idiots: that's EXACTY why you want
a solid Operating System that sits on, and it's fined tuned to that
specific real hardware! and with regards to back-pressure, old school
protocols such as HTTP have had things like 503 and RetryAfter header from
their original design!!
It's so funny that most of these things are for multi-core optimizations
that are not even running on real hardware!
Log Unification: well how about a little education on RFC 3164 and Log
Analyzer?
Virtualization: isn't this what Unix basically is? I mean the concept of
processes that are running and sharing resources is that not virtualization
by principle?
Pseudo-Virtuzalization: Isn't this what chroot and BSD Jails do? Oh you
want an easy interface like Docker, well how about EzJail?
IPC: Isn't that what pipes and SYS 5 IPC provide: an MQ, Shared Mem and
Semaphores? Oh too slow? (really? compared to what?).
And finally the crown jewel: microservices. Well, isn't this one of the
basic design principles of Unix? I mean tiny little things that talk well
to each other to build big things with?
Honestly I could go on but I thing you get the idea. It seems that this
whole "enterprise" industry has been hell-bent on re-inventing a big, bad,
ugly and expensive version of Unix, just because they don't want to tie
their design to Unix? For portability? to what?, well to another flavour of
Unix called Linux, running on Xen and well, Linux.
Is there are real proof that all this microservices crap is really that
much better than individual processes (e.g. built with sh, Perl and/or C)
running on a fined-tuned Unix system on real hardware?
Oh yeah, that's right, high-level guys are too expensive? really? compared
to what? to the dozens and dozens of mediocre "coders", "devops",
"techops"and whatever other "ops". Yeah, we are way more expensive but we
are 50:1, maybe 100:1 compared the median in the "enterprise" side of
things.
Steve Jobs was so right about the "dynamic range"of A players:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D7yh7ikSQwKg
Anyway, that's my rant of the year ;-)
Thanks so much for FreeBSD!!
--=20
Alex
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org=
"
=20
From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Sep 11 20:41:47 2018
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFD5109D2D7
for <freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:41:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@twc.com)
Received: from dnvrco-cmomta03.email.rr.com (dnvrco-outbound-snat.email.rr.com
[107.14.73.229])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified))
by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D0B589D60
for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:41:45 +0000 (UTC)
(envelope-from freebsd@twc.com)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([74.132.25.214]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA
id zpTcfzMToAx0yzpTff1WkB; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:41:39 +0000
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: FreeBSD TWC <FreeBSD@twc.com>
Subject: Booting multiple EFI partitions
Message-ID: <4975d569-209c-2d66-2664-678984186908@twc.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:41:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJjCd5BePBvnuetixSZcwUUlf5xsII+mLJCLkobdYqzhFmw4H5ZgdfSWg37FHFE42A9FRaWHwwwPRtEnKnV8GEUFAkbVnr/eiEL/xdO68ZnV0PWhS7bp
aVNrJZDasDZh+dLpoK0HyT+A+l2uF6L2fagCM8iC3yjNXKco3quCv/+yhS4aeOkdqE6eEbVMTMxbvw==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.27
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>,
<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>;
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:41:47 -0000
I have a new HP Slimline Desktop 290-p0014 which features an Intel i7-8700.
I can install two instances of FreeBSD 11.2 Release, here's the boot process documented in eufi man page:
3. /boot1.efi/ searches partitions of type freebsd-ufs and
freebsd-zfs for /loader.efi/. The search begins with partitions
on the device from which/boot1.efi/ was loaded, and continues
with other available partitions. If both freebsd-ufs and
freebsd-zfs partitions exist on the same device the
freebsd-zfs partition is preferred./boot1.efi/ then loads and
executes/loader.efi/.
4. /loader.efi/ loads and boots the kernel, as described in
loader(8) <https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=loader&sektion=8&apropos=0&manpath=FreeBSD+11.2-RELEASE+and+Ports>.
The result is that a second freebsd partition can never be booted. I have always liked to install a second instance of freebsd to use as a recovery drive, rather than waiting for a slow CD-ROM boot.
When I installed two instances of FreeBSD, bsdinstall added two lines in the BIOS boot menu (I pressed F9).
But both lines are identical:
UEFI OS (TOSHIBA HDWE160)
One I gave the hostname Chameleon and the other was Recovery. I also labeled each partition that way.
Is anyone working on enhancing boot1.efi to support booting from other partitions?
I want the functionality of boot0 where FreeBSD displayed all the available partitions and allowed me to select any one.
I can do that now on my machine, but I have to use legacy BIOS boot to an MBR, rather than UEFI boot to a GPT partition.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1244580891.3760894.1536696544711>