|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Fortunately, he doesn't know my credit card details
As long as you keep telling yourself that, the cat stays happy...just sayin'...
|
|
|
|
|
If we all run around naked and someone pees on you, you get wet right away. IF you are wearing pants, some pee will get through, but not as much. So you are better protected.
But if the guy who pees is also wearing pants, the pee stays with him and you do not get wet.
Is that clear enough?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: Is that clear enough?
Got it - don't pee in my face mask!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: Is that clear enough?
can't see a bl**dy thing with my pants on my head.
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.
Synonyms: pest, plague, CCP
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, you really want to change your shampoo - your hair smells really nasty. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a pretty good analogy: if you are infected, then wearing a breathing shield face mask helps prevent you from infecting others - it doesn't prevent others from infecting you (except possibly as a tiny proportion of your use of PPE)
I'm sorry for your wife, mine was sent home from the Care Home where she works - with elderly COVID patients yesterday, and we're on quarantine. I don't think it's coronavirus, but we're waiting for a test to be arranged to check, and it's probably the amount she's been overworked in the last couple of months as other staff self isolate (some genuinely, some not) that has brought her to this point.
Keep her safe, do what you can for her, let her get as much rest as she can - this is not a lot of fun.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
sirius-black wrote: I am married to a Health Professional who is currently working 12½ shifts attending to patients with CV-19. When I look into her exhausted face on her return, it's a stark reminder of the seriousness of this pandemic.
Thank her for her invaluable work.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
sirius-black wrote: I am married to a Health Professional who is currently working 12½ shifts attending to patients with CV-19. When I look into her exhausted face on her return, it's a stark reminder of the seriousness of this pandemic.
I know how you feel. My wife is medical staff too, luckily enough her shifts are not that hard anymore, what brings a bit of physical relax, but mentally still is a big load. I hope you stay healthy.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the masks (at least in USA) is to prevent the wearer from spread their disease to others - or at least, mitigate it.
If you give it some thought, in public locations, the use of a scarf is likely to be as good or better a choice than a face mask. The reason? If you cough or sneeze into the mask (the primary target for it's preventive need) then it will probably be over-pressured by the sudden out rush of air. It will escape through the sized and the results sent sideways and backwards instead of being trapped.
On the other hand, a scarf-like has a material of a looser weave (in general) and it makes the release of pressure easier - now one can wrap said scarf around more than once. As the particles are expelled through the scarf they hit the weave and are trapped. Although coarser, it's much thicker to make up the difference. The mentioning of a study in Viet Nam - totally unsupervised with respect to handling the cloth masks (let alone any mention of compensating for the looser weave with more layers) makes it questionable (at best).
The looser weave not only prevents over-pressure and consequential escape of unfiltered droplets and particles but, since it wraps around, it has far less access to side/backward leakage.
In real life, picture this: In some (southern) US states they have allowed the opening of barber shops. The barber and customer were show, both wearing masks, with the barber behind. A good cough or sneeze and the barber gets a face full (vectored right into the eyes . . . oops!).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I asked a question which can be summarised as "what's the point of going to Azure, how does scalability even work"?
Some few good answers point to Microservices as the way to take advantage of the scalability of the cloud. And the reason why they have become popular in recent years, as cloud takes off.
At this stage I guess I need to read a bit more about microservice and how you synchronise their data (like, Netflix use microservice to update user password, apparently, but this information need to be spread around for next login to work hey?)
However one thing still nag me right away....
If each of your client app make a query to "myservice.mycompany.com" there is still this one server hit by a lot of query, right? How does microservice really help here?!
(sorry if it's a stupid question, never worked with "server farm" nor do I know how they work)
EDIT
BTW found some good reading on that topic! 
Designing and Developing Multi Container and Microservice Based .NET Applications | Microsoft Docs
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a programming question?
Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno... I rather have plain English while short and concise answers...
Is there a forum for plain English language programming question?! 
And by that I mean any article about that, the code will be likely the least interesting and relevant part of the answer... 
modified 30-Apr-20 2:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Is there a forum for plain English language programming question?!
Not since the SoapboxTrollpit was deleted. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a stupid question at all, and it's mentioned I think in the documentation (at least in the pdf version that I downloaded last year).
I think they recommend using an API gateway like Ocelot (on GitHub), or messaging like RabbitMQ. But the main point is that microservices should be as independent as possible.
To me it is still a mystery how to do all this, even after reading a lot on the subject.
Also see: resources-to-learn-about-docker-deployment[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link! 
Yeah, trying to see if there is any truth behind the hype is particularly difficult for that one! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
gRPC is just the underlying communication technology... Not specific to the question whether to use microservice, or not!
But it's good, yes!
|
|
|
|
|
Bit long answer, but here it goes.
Alright, imagine the following scenario.
You have a website for buying concert tickets and looking up information on artists and concerts.
It's all just one big monolith in the back-end.
Now The Rolling Stones are doing a concert near you and ticket purchasing starts at 12 PM.
At 12 PM you log into the website only to find it's not working or working really slow.
Needless to say, you didn't get a ticket because they were sold out after five seconds.
Let's say ordering a ticket costs three seconds to process and the system can process five at the same time, but at that point any other requests will have to wait.
That means you can process 100 tickets a minute, but you get thousands and the system becomes unresponsive for minutes at a time.
There are, as I see it, two ways to solve this problem.
Either offload to another service or scale up your service and optionally use a load balancer.
Or both.
The first option is offloading the order handling to a separate (micro)service.
Just put every order in a queue and have your microservice read the queue and process the order.
The main application can now simply put something on a queue and inform the user that their order is being processed and they will receive an email soon.
This process takes milliseconds instead of three seconds and users won't get an unresponsive website.
You can put up multiple instances of your microservice to process faster.
Cloud services such as Azure Functions or AWS Lambda can scale out-of-the-box if its CPU goes to 80% or something and there are still a lot of items on the queue.
You can have up to 200 instances I think, so you should be able to process everything relatively fast.
One the queue is empty, Azure will scale down back to 0 (in case of Azure Functions, you'll also stop paying at 0 instances).
Unfortunately, some users will get an email that their order was cancelled because there are no more tickets left, but at least they got their chance and everyone can continue using the website.
Now, let's say even with this solution in place users experience long loading times.
You should probably scale your website as well.
This is a load you see coming, so you can scale up your server for the day, say double CPU, to process faster.
You pay for the extra CPU, but only for a day.
The day after you can scale back down to your regular CPU.
Another form of scaling is by telling Azure to just spin up another instance.
If you're using App Services this process is automatic and you get a free load balancer.
This process can be automated or be manual (this is different than the order processing).
Say you need to scale up to three instances temporarily and then back to one, no problem.
Because you're using microservices you can scale the website and the ordering system independently.
That's good because the order processing needs to scale a lot more, but the process is also a lot smaller.
If it was one application you had to scale the whole thing to maybe 20 instances just to process orders.
An added bonus, say your order processing service goes down, for whatever reason.
People can still access the website and even place orders, because that application didn't go down.
The orders won't be processed and maybe people need to wait hours before their order confirmation, but at least they won't get a 500.
Now, try scaling up like that with your on-premises network.
You need to install load balancers and somehow add multiple servers on the fly.
It's possible, but it probably means you've got a lot of idle servers sitting around.
In the cloud these servers aren't idle, they just go to the next customer who needs to scale up.
You can't do that on-premises.
A long answer, but hopefully you got a gist of what Azure can do what you can't do on-premises
There are other options too and different solutions per options, but that would make this already long post into a book
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time for this long reply.
Although... I am not quite convinced by it  By gave it the benefits of the doubt and try to tweak it in a manner that was more convincing to me...
How about... You 20 core webserver has already 20 highly demanding process (a hard to believe scenario.. but probably possible) keeping the CPU busy at 100% for a while... and more query piling up...
Then one would need a new server... And, necessarily, a data infrastructure that demands distributed data, I think...
It still seems to me, however, that a single database remains a point of failure here... and taking our big large application and just dropping in the cloud, will reap 0 benefits....
|
|
|
|
|
To continue on my previous message...
Taking the current application (which talk to 3 different other system every second query) and put it on Azure.. is not going to work...
Starting a whole new one, destined to replace part of the current one, might perhaps be a good idea.... Will have to study what need scaling first....
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I hear what you're saying and I'm going to write another long reply about it 
You're saying, what if I have a server with 20 busy processes?
The obvious fix would be to get a new server and move a couple of processes to the new server (if possible).
That fixes the CPU issue, but your database is still a single point of failure.
Correct me if I got that wrong.
Before continuing, let me say this, fixing performance issues is rarely easy.
You may be able to buy a bigger server now, but the problem will come back when you get more users.
The issue is most likely caused by some hard to fix part of the software, like a particular database schema or a piece of code that ties various parts of the application together.
Azure won't magically fix your problems, but neither will not going to Azure.
In the end, Azure is a tool that may or may not work for you, but it does have some benefits over on-premises hardware.
Especially when you need big hardware, Azure is not necessarily cheaper.
Back to microservices.
Using a microservice architecture, every service has their own data store.
The benefit of this, is that every service can use the store that best fits its needs.
And of course that your single point of failure is gone, and that's one that makes this complex architecture worthwhile for many companies.
The downside is, obviously, that it adds a lot of complexity and possibly costs.
Furthermore, in practice, all of the services will probably use the database you're most familiar with anyway, say SQL Server.
That's really a trade-off and every team will have to decide if it's worth it, but it's always a possibility.
So, again, say that out of those 20 processes you have, one is particularly busy and could keep a server busy by itself.
You can opt to give this particular service its own data store if that's the problem.
Of course you will need to come up with some way to sync that data store with your other data store.
If it's a web service you could always provide the necessary data and then save the data it returns (sort of caching, I guess).
You could work with queues or events, but I really can't make that decision for you.
In any case, you'll have some work on your hands there.
My former recommendations also still stand, you can auto-scale it using Azure and use a load balancer (included with App Services).
Or if it's an autonomous process you could spin up an Azure Function and let that handle the scaling up and down.
You say you currently have one big application and bringing it to Azure would bring no benefits.
This approach is also called lift and shift, and indeed brings few benefits to the table.
You may be able to do some scaling, if your application can handle running multiple processes to begin with.
Doing some refactoring and running your application in an Azure App Service could be rewarding.
It has auto scale and deployment becomes a lot easier.
You can also think about migrating your database to Azure (SQL Server, PostgreSQL and MariaDB have PaaS offerings in Azure), but that could be expensive.
This approach takes a little more effort as well.
You could rearchitect your application so that you can host various parts of the application in cloud-native solutions such as App Services, Functions, Azure SQL and Service Bus.
The effort here could be considerable, but you could get a lot more benefits like easy deployment and (auto-)scaling.
If you really want to go cloud native and get the most out of the cloud you could do a complete rewrite, but that's expensive and costs a lot of effort.
I say most likely not worth it, but you could consider it.
You could check out a book I co-authored, Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure (see my signature).
It's a bit of self promotion, but it discusses the rehost, refactor, rearchitect and rewrite strategies in a bit more depth and it also discusses various (cloud-native) technologies you could use.
Hopefully this answers your questions
|
|
|
|
|
After thinking about it, after reading about it on the interweb and MSDN, after talking about it...
I think I can safely state:
- Yes Cloud architecture might improve your application performance (or might not)
- What many people fail to emphasise is that efficient cloud architecture is significantly more complex... it is often brushed with a simple one liner "each micro service should have its own database", "synchronise your service with event architecture" but, in fact, this is the only part that is difficult. And lots of fore thought it needs indeed before diving in....
Further, in our particular case where we are forced to interface to 2 local Navision system, I think it's not going to work without lots of additional work...
I mean.. it's good for me, was just curious about the wisdom of it... As far as I know we only have a few thousands customer (we are an Australia only Business to Local Government only factory) and performance has never be an issue, as far as I know
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
