manta

al mariokart games to manta and running analytics on the raw video to generate office kart racer stats, the bog standard dump all the logs and map/reduce/grep/count them, and I think there was one about running mdb postmortems on terabytes of core dumps.

" that I'm shuffling around are, at the lower bound, 130MB in size. I understand that a lot of this can be done directly at the Julia layer for Julia things (much like Spark does with JVM things), but it kinda limits the applications of this nonetheless. [0] https://github.com/joyent/manta

engineers live, it will be playing catch-up forever. My impression about package management being a shit-show on other operating systems is that every single podcast or blog post I read about those operating systems is celebrating that "package management is easy now with pkg" -- while it's actually not IMO as good as certain GNU/Linux package managers. In order for that opinion of yours to actually mean anything, the question is: how many packaging formats do you know to produce packages for? Only then will you be in a position where you would actually be competent to make such a statement, and where your opinion would actually make a difference. I myself have packaged for HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, GNU/Linux (RPM), GNU/Linux (DPKG), and SmartOS (pkgsrc), so I'm in a position to make such statements, and yet I didn't. You, on the other hand, apparently have no such inhibitions. Only 14000? "Only". If you had packaged, you would have known that the same body of software could be delivered by an arbitrary number of packages, since that depends on the packager(s), respectively on the architecture. Also, what distribution of GNU/Linux, what version of the distribution, how much automated QA happens before releases, etc? The same thing which happens on GNU/Linux; if you think that packages on GNU/Linux get tested like a classic UNIX vendor would test it, you're naive. This is all not true, and you should know better. Docker/runC doesn't have an init process in containers. You _can_ run an init process, but it isn't necessary. Is that right? https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zomb... In addition, the zombie problem doesn't exist because of sub-reapers which are a Linux kernel feature. As it stands, I've worked with Linux extensively and I've never heard of such a thing. Please show me that code, for if you actually manage to show me that, I will have learned something new. In addition, I am a maintainer of runC and actually care much more about the OCI than Docker. Aaahhh, so that's why you keep on blindly lobbying for Docker. Now we finally get to the bottom of the thing. Couldn't you just be honest from the onset like I was on what your motivation is, so everybody knows where everybody stands? So basically, you're trying to re-invent project Kevlar, Solaris zones, in a completely generic way so as to be everything and not be anything in particular to anyone. Did you not study UNIX, and the old Henry Spencer's saying those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to re-invent it -- badly? You could just bite the bullet and benefit from a complete, enterprise, battle tested solution with a decade of use behind it, and use Solaris zones by using vmadm(1M) in SmartOS, you know. No need to re-invent the wheel. Again. How many more solutions does GNU/Linux need in order to be able to run lightweight virtual machines? Can't you people engineer one solution which actually works properly, like we have it in illumos? Apparently that's too much to ask. Or you could just use zones, which have been working for a decade, and actually let one run lightweight virtual servers running at the speed of bare metal in production, today: https://smartos.org/man/1m/vmadm https://smartos.org/man/1m/zoneadm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgN8pCMLI2U As for "OCI", I have no idea what you're writing about. To me, an oldschool UNIX guy, "OCI" stands for "Oracle Call Interface": http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/features/oci/inde... Finally, a word on your question about setting up Manta. Apparently it's open source: https://github.com/joyent/manta ...which means you can set it up seven ways 'till Sunday, and do with it whatever you please, however you please. I myself don't use it, because I design my availability into the application I write, and my interest is in the infrastructure layer anyway, where things like DNS are designed to be highly available from the onset (again availability in the application, and not the OS layer). http://dtrace.org/blogs/dap/2013/07/03/fault-tolerance-in-ma...

ata -- but we has some data take some very, very long vacations.) I shudder to think about building a data path on much less proven components than ZFS circa 2008, let alone building a data path seemingly in total ignorance of the mechanics -- let alone challenges -- of writing to persistent storage. The second time I learned the painful lessons of storage was with Manta.[2] Here again, we built on ZFS and reliable, proven "tried and true" technologies like PostgreSQL and Zookeeper. And here again, we learned about really nasty, surprising failure modes at the margins.[3] These failure modes haven't led to data loss -- but when someone's data is unavailable, that is of little solace. In this regard, the data path -- the world of persistent state -- is a different world in terms of expectations for quality. That most of our domain thinks in terms of stateless apps is probably a good thing: state is a very hard thing to get right, and, in your words, tried and true absolutely beats novel and new. All of this is what makes Torus's ignorance of what comes before it so exasperating; one gets the sense that if they understood how thorny this problem actually is, they would be trying much harder to use the proven open source components out there rather than attempt to sloppily (if cheerfully) reinvent them. [1] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/03/10/turning-the-corner/ [2] https://github.com/joyent/manta [3] https://www.joyent.com/blog/manta-postmortem-7-27-2015