Andrés
Love, money, health... . #love #money #health #s3x #javirroyo #illustration #art #artist #design #artwork #digitalart #aesthetic #arte #drawing #artistsoninstagram #illustrator
The formula in Fig 5 is one of the reasons why Elasticsearch does not allow the update of the number of primary shards post index creation. What the default routing guarantees is that the data will be uniformly distributed across the cluster which would reduce query
hotspots
when retrieving documentsfrom 403 - Forbidden
from feed updates
Did you know that focusing on performance can actually HURT your performance? This paradox is known as “The Performance Paradox.” If you care about performance, you should understand it and act accordingly.from feed updates
Why is AWS losing market share to Microsoft and Google? Probably because cloud cost optimisation and shift towards new type of workloads is hitting the biggest player the most. Around 40-50% of AWS revenue comes from EC2, the most basic compute offering. This is a higher share than for Azure and GCP. Computing is the easiest cost to optimize, therefore hurting AWS the most. Google Cloud with focus on Data/AI has been consistently taking the market share from AWS/Azure and will soon have 20% of the Cloud market.- The interesting function therefore is the red line, the one that adds the up-front invest to the potential liability. That's your total cost and the thing you should be minimizing. In most cases, with increasing up-front invest, you'll move towards an optimum range. Additional investment into reducing lock-in actually leads to higher total cost. The reason is simple: the returns on investment diminish, especially for switches that carry a small probability. If we make our architecture ever-so-flexible, we are likely stuck in this zone of over-investment. The Yagni (you ain't gonna need it) folks may aim for the other end of the spectrum - as so often, the trick is to find the happy medium.
- The matrix differentiates between the cost of making the switch from the likelihood that you'll have (or want) to make the switch. Things that have a low likelihood and a low cost shouldn't bother you much while the opposite end, the ones with high switching cost and a high chance of switch, are no good and should be addressed. On the other diagonal, you are taking your chances on those options that will cost you, but are unlikely to occur - that's where you'll want to buy some insurance, for example by limiting the scope of change or by padding your maintenance budget. You could also accept the risk - how often would you really need to migrate off Oracle onto DB2, or vice versa? Lastly, if switches are likely but cheap, you achieved agility - you embrace change and designed your system for low cost of executing it. Oddly, this quadrant often gets less attention than the top left despite many small changes adding up quickly. That's our poor decision making at work: the unlikely drama gets more attention because what if!
switching cost (aka "lock-in"): how difficult will be for us to move to another solution?
unique utility: how much are we gaining from the solution compared to alternatives?