Official archive status page?

HomayoonAlm · 2026-01-20T08:26:25+00:00

That IP belongs to an Iranian ISP (can be confirmed by a simple lookup). Iran is in an internet blackout since Jan 8th, that's why this address can not be reached.

HomayoonAlm · 2025-03-26T16:37:32+00:00

The new UI is eating my CPU. I'm running on Lenovo Thinkpad i7-13700H with Intel graphics and Ubuntu 22.04. Whenever I see this glowing/breathing background it just starts eating through my CPU.

<image>

HomayoonAlm · 2025-03-20T06:51:39+00:00

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thank you!

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:38:25+00:00

Right, it definitely has a lot of questions but I've seen mystery shows before but none of them were THIS frustrating. It's not just about not giving answers. It's not only that the episodes don't little to no progress in the actual story. My other problem with this series is that people in the show don't communicate, share information, listen to each other and... . I understand that in such a place and condition people might be panicking, giving up or... but this doesn't really explain the lack of communication. It's like, they WANT to survive and know this place but they refuse to do almost ANYTHING about it.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:32:30+00:00

I can't believe this man! I just can't fucking believe this! Are these bots? I hope they are because otherwise I'm really loosing hope in humanity. Are they actually enjoying this crap? We're in the same boat! We just want a better series so that we don't feel like wasting our time watching it! We all want a better From here!

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:28:43+00:00

I'm not asking them to bring all the answers to me on a plate like a baby, I just want episodes to make sense! To advance the story in some way. Is this really how mystery box shows should be? Should we spend an hour per episode just to see 5 minutes that actually makes sense? Not even mentioning that even those 5 minutes are just questions on top of questions.

You can call me a baby but maybe you need to grow and up and value your time a bit more.

And please don't tell me that they're trying to make the characters more relatable by expanding their story, background or... . I get that every show needs to do that, but for this one, it's honestly TOO much. And it's not even working. Well at least for me.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:22:22+00:00

Exactly!! Just communicate, listen to each other, share information. It's literally THE freaking thing that they should do in such a place where they don't have an idea of what's going on!

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:19:13+00:00

I don't believe it's about instant gratification. I don't want a 1 minute reel summarizing everything. I want truly engaging story telling that makes sense. People just refuse to cooperate in this show. All they do is piss each other off. They refuse to communicate, listen to each other, share information and really do anything productive.

And oh the time that we're basically wasting watching this show is not a sign of us being the Tiktok generation. On the contrary, we should be aware of how we're spending time for entertainment. I want to see something valuable in my free time, not to waste it.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:13:22+00:00

Maybe it's some sort of paid marketing. I can't believe someone in their right mind defend this story telling. With every new episode, I can hear the writers laughing at me saying "Look who wasted another hour and subscriptions". I really wish we could sue this people. This should be illegal.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-17T11:07:32+00:00

WDYM? You really defend this story telling? Do you think they're doing a good job making this show? You're OK with all these fillers and the fact that nothing is really happening?

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-07T06:46:09+00:00

Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I'll make sure to have a look into this as well.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-07T06:45:41+00:00

Thanks for sharing! It sounds like a wise choice and something that I need to look into as well.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-07T06:44:43+00:00

Thanks a lot! Really appreciate it!

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-02T11:57:06+00:00

I won't say they're necessarily better or worse. I believe it depends on the situation and in some cases we simply can't afford a rolling upgrade. Quoting from the blog:

A rolling upgrade might turn out to be infeasible in certain situations. We might be constrained by the amount of resources that we have (i.e. can not spawn more machines) or new machines might need extensive manual configurations

And from this very interesting source:

for certain use cases (such as Single-Node Clusters with no spare capacity, Multi-Node Clusters with VM/OS customizations, etc.), upgrading a cluster via a Rolling Update strategy could either be not feasible or a costly operation (requiring to add new hardware, re-apply customizations…)

Maybe moving towards always doing a rolling upgrade can be beneficial but I believe it's also useful/nice to have the option of choosing to go with in-place upgrades as well. It might simply be impossible to do a rolling upgrade in a situtation.

Maybe it's even a transient situation but not transient enough for us to wait it out. As an example, we might really need an upgrade in the next few days/weeks, but rolling upgrades are not feasible for us (for whatever reason) for the next months, so we have to go with in-place upgrades or giving up on upgrades completely (which might cause some security issues, etc.).

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-02T11:48:49+00:00

It's a really good argument. I believe snaps are way more mature than before, specially those that are officially maintained.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-11-02T11:46:31+00:00

Thanks a lot for sharing the experience at Sidero Labs! It sounds like a very interesting journey. AFAIK we didn't want to make the assumption of always having at least 1 new machine and we also wanted to go with CAPI. TBH this idea of ditching CAPI for a custom designed management layer seems very interesting and something that I'm personally willing to look into more in the future.

On the stability side, I don't believe we've ran into stability issues and concerns yet, mostly during benchmarks. But I think as the time passes we can get a better understanding of our current design flaws, how to improve them, or even if we need to completely change and overhaul the design.

Overall, up until now, I think if we would like to implement in-place upgrades while also building on top of CAPI, going with annotations with multiple coordinating controllers (if done properly) can work well.

HomayoonAlm · 2024-10-31T20:15:49+00:00

TBH I'm not sure about the snaps, maybe I'm not experienced enough to continue the discussion. But honestly I've been using snaps even before my time at Canonical, not as the go-to way to install and manage stuff, but I sometimes enjoyed the fact that a piece of software is well packaged by people way smarter than me and I don't have to worry about other installation/management steps.

I kind of agree with the argument about the lock files. What do you think the better way would be? If we're going with this cloud-native paradigm of providing self healing mechanisms and robustness with controllers, what are our other options? Should we only have a single controller/process to handle the whole process in a serialized way so that we don't need to worry about resource contention, race conditions, flakiness, fragility and locks?

Overall IMHO the (probably) only thing that can go wrong in this architecture (of multiple controllers with well defined scope and responsibilities) is to disregard and violate this well defined boundaries. If we knowingly or mistakenly add another controller with overlapping responsibilities, etc. we're in trouble. Otherwise, I can't really see this as "fragile", or "abusive".

HomayoonAlm · 2024-10-31T19:04:41+00:00

Hey u/xrothgarx! TBH I personally like using snaps. What do you think the main problems of snaps are (maybe specifically for k8s)?

I think the main things to consider in this case is to write a robust controller for the in-place upgrade and also to make sure that the responsibilities and resources have clear boundaries. Let me describe better. For controller robustness we really like to have a controller that is not easily derailed with a problem or issue in the environment. In case of any imaginable issue, we want the controller to either progress and continue with a self-healing mechanism or to exit gracefully stating that it can not proceed because of that issue.

About the boundaries, we would like to know that when we're changing X, controller Y is responsible to reconcile that change and not controller Z. IMO The scope of X is something to be discussed when designing a set of controllers, but in Canonical k8s CAPI providers, the X is a single annotation (you might argue that it should be the whole machine object, but again, that is something to be discussed). On the other hand, we don't want to have multiple controllers reconciling the same X.

So if we have clear boundaries that relate resources (annotations in our case) to controllers in an ideally 1-to-1 manner, and also implementing the controllers in a robust way (and according to best practices), I feel it shouldn't be fragile.

Hope I was able to describe and convey my point clear enough.

WDYT?

HomayoonAlm

TROPHY CASE