Skip to main content

The Killer App

The killer app is not really the killer app but the killer framework. The idea came to me when I was watching the keynote from RubyConf AU 2013. Dave Thomas, the speaker, talked about many subjects, however, most notably he talked about developer productivity as it results from the granularity of the language; in his case Ruby and it's DSL-ness.

I do not particularly care for custom DSLs, however, general purpose embedded DSLs serve a terrific purpose.

Scale or the ability comes in many different flavors and many combo flavors too; and it can effect each point in the stack. It's also why companies move certain aspects of their applications to the client and sometimes back. There is also a migration to and from distributed computing and the monolithic appliance. However, in most cases the workflow or transaction and the infrastructure are linked together.

Being linked together refers to a number of linkages:

  • The source code is literally compiled and linked together
  • There is some logical aspect to a transaction that is known to all layers in the stack
  • The layers of the application stack are glued together
This simply cannot scale. Whether it's resources to implement new features, maintenance, or the increase the number of clients and server instances to support them. This will fail all attempts to scale and system availability.
One particular challenge is the server farm. What do you do when you have 100 or 1000 servers with a particular app or service. Do you take everything off the air for maintenance or can you do rolling migrations. What about point in time restores or recovery? What happens when you rolled out that latest patch... it runs for 24hours on the production canary... and is rolled out... only to find a serious bug that needs to be completely rolled back.(I hate hot plugging)
I'm not promoting one particular solution but an idea. The application framework is the application framework. It knows absolutely nothing about the actual transaction. Just that there is a transaction. It also knows how to move packages and route messages; not that it understands the contents of the message. And it knows how to deliver the response. And let it know how to execute some generic workflow.

In an over simplification the application framework can be a desktop app or a desktop app simulation of the web app framework. The web app framework could bloat with features for different classes of businesses but the workflow would stay the same.

As a side note. Many developers start to panic when they see architecture like this. They tend to believe that there is a certain amount of relegation or non-technical-ness that happens. Well this is part of the process. It's also why I think the DSL needs to be a proper language rather than the base implementation. And the most important thing is that there are so many things a business needs to run successfully that the core app is but only one piece. The other infrastructure elements are so much more important. That's for another post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: http://www.eeti.com.tw/drivers_Linux.html (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the setup.sh answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…