News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem les... by perbu on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @05:02AM (#40726340)
Machine failures are few and far between these days. Over the last four years I've had a cluster of perhaps 10 machines. Not a single hardware failure.

Loads of software issues, of course.

I know this is just an anecdote, but I'm pretty certain reliability has increased by one or two orders of magnitude since the 90s.

Re:Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem les... by sgarland on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @09:14AM (#40727998)
Also anecdotally, I’ve been running 12th gen Dells (over a decade old at this point) for several years. I’ve had some RAM sticks report ECC failures (reseat them), an HBA lose its mind and cause the ZFS pool to offline (reseat the HBA and its cables), and precisely one actual failure – a PSU. They’re redundant and hot-swappable, so I bought a new one and fixed it.
Re:Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem les... by bamboozled on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @10:38AM (#40728750)
You didn't answer the question though. You're answer is "it won't" and that isn't a good strategy.
Re:Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem les... by Zababa on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @10:59AM (#40728932)
It is in that if something happens less often, you don't need to prepare for it as much if the severity stays the same (cue in Nassim Taleb entering the conversation).
Re:Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem les... by bamboozled on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @11:13AM (#40729056)
I'm not sure what types of products you work on, but it's kind of rare at most companies I've worked at where having a backup like that is a workable solution.