I bought a plastic tower for disks which let's me have 10 disks with some space between them. I then bought some Artic fans and attached them with tape to the 'tower'. Then I used a 11 years old optiplex 990 as Debian zfs connected to 8 of the disks, and I have 2 spares which I'll be able to use when the others die.
Performance is great. I could do it because I was given those disks for free, with plenty of ours on each of them.
Shall we be concerned that not many are even able to read assembler code?
I'm not talking about reading machine code, produced by the assembler, but the assembler code itself.
Machine code was hard, but one could make it pretty efficient. Not efficiently.
Assembler was still pretty performant, for today's standard it is tip top.
So, moving on 10, 20 years from now, can someone read c++? Even html?
I think whoever is responsible for the correct operation of a software system will still need to read something that precisely describes the behaviours that they care about.
Today, for most devs, thats the code. We usually don't need to look at compiled output, because the code is enough. We can't just look at the prompts, because they aren't precise enough.
All have its space.
Small team, do monolith or you'll stop moving.
Big teams, be wary of Conway's law, and don't fight it, probably some services will emerge.
Similar with forgejo.
I mirrored all gh then flipped the ones I was using the most.
The biggest win was on running apple runners in my mac, so the free gh actions can do other stuff.
Getting better, more reliable and faster CI was such an underappreciated gain (from me at least) when moving to a self-hosted git platform. What used to take ~40 minutes end-to-end (from pushing commit to having release binary ready for three platforms) now takes less than 10 minutes, and seemingly that whole slowdown was causing me more headache that I think I was willing to admit at the time.
Performance is great. I could do it because I was given those disks for free, with plenty of ours on each of them.
reply