No we are not implementing blockchain to our backup systems : programmerhumor

[–] db2 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You need to implement the synergistic cloud blockchain.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

*synergistic cloud quantum blockchain powered by AI

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ON THE METAVERSE

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

With 16x the details

[–] guycls 8 points 1 year ago

Needs to be in production by next month.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Ah, so we can leverage acceleration towards actionable efficiency.

[–] adj16 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

M E E I N G

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My boss holds Meeings all the time. Almost every meeting is about her and how great she is. I will now call these meeting "meeings".

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All those Meeings could have been an emai as well

[–] elegantgoat1 3 points 1 year ago

Memail?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I've been to some of those. They really suck. Worse than meetings.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

Be fired || deal with customers

😰

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Your meetings have agendas? That must be nice.

[+] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What does the title have to do with the post...?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, customers will sometimes ask for certain solutions to be used. Solutions for problems they don't have...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Solutions that make no sense to the problem they think they have.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Customers fall for every hype and want dumb things that don't make sense to be implemented.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

suit customer may be worst customer

[–] doublejay1999 7 points 1 year ago

Oh look ! A programmers meme thread has descended into a technical argument.

[–] GrammatonCleric 5 points 1 year ago

What even is this job? 😂

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Real talk, if this is happening to you often you've gotta decline more meetings.

[+] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agenda?

[+] [email protected] -26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

honestly a distributed ledger makes alot of sense for backups, having a swarm of backup nodes which replicate your backup data... good resiliency and geographic distribution.

[–] fubo 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What you want in that situation is called a "replicated database", not a "distributed ledger" and certainly not a "blockchain".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

99.999% of the time what people imagine when they say blockchain is good is effectively just the matrix protocol, which can be summarized as federated eventually consistent databases (and that's pretty dang neato).

[–] fubo 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If a single organization owns all the servers, there's not even in theory a reason to prefer blockchain over a plain replicated database. And in practice anyone who's pushing blockchain is either an ideologue or a scammer; either way they don't have the user's best interests at heart.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

that's my point, most of the time people don't even know what a blockchain actually is, and the reason they think it's good is because in their head they imagine something less shit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Could not have said it better myself

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven't seen a replicated database that operates over the same scale of failure domains as distrubuted ledgers, do you have good examples of that?

[–] fubo 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They don't have to. If you don't have database replicas that are actively trying to subvert the system, inject bogus transactions, etc. then you don't have the set of failure domains for which blockchains are in theory useful for.

If you're running backups for a single organization, you just need replicated data storage on servers owned and operated by that organization. If you're running backups for a set of users who all trust your organization (e.g. if you're Dropbox or the like), you also don't need blockchain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's pretty reasonable not to implicitly trust an organization to always get things right or always be honest about what they are doing. Couldn't there be theoretical value in spreading backups across multiple organizations and having cryptographic evidence they are all doing their jobs correctly, to reduce the need for that trust?

[–] fubo 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Theoretically? Sure. But in reality, blockchain pushers are fanatics, scammers, or both, so no real organization should trust them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMO that's a pretty limiting perspective. The existence of a lot of noise around a technology isn't a great reason to take a hard stance against ever using it.

[–] fubo 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you think you've found the one honest snake-oil salesman, you're almost certainly wrong. That's part of reality.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can agree that it's a bad idea to trust a salesman trying to market a blockchain product or service, but part of the point of open standards and techniques is that you can evaluate them on their own merits and implement them without needing to trust anyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not talking about back ups but more of dealing with the problems of distributed data in general. I.E. How do you, across a network of intermittent reliability (at a certain scale this is a guarantee not a choice), in sure that a piece of data written to and read by multiple actors is constant and available across the system?

[–] fubo 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spanner.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cloud only and closed source, right?

[–] fubo 1 points 1 year ago

I'm pointing at the architecture, not the specific implementation. Build something like Spanner, not something like a blockchain.

[–] marcos 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes no sense at all to distribute the backup generation step, and what do you do with your ledger once the retention period ends?

There may be something you can do with a ledger in the "full - incremental - incremental - incremental ..." cycle, but I can't think of anything that's actually useful.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

or you could just not do that, and keep control of your own data. Why the hell would I want you to have a vote on whether I can delete my private data, which for some unfathomable reason, someone decided everyone should have a copy of?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In practice, data owners don't have control of their data, sysadmins do. This gets complicated in multi-orgnizational data setups.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the sysadmin is part of the owner

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

data owner was the key one here. If I run a storage service for example, I have control of the data, but you would see it as a breech of trust if I deleted your data, or gave access to someone else without your permission, because you in the scenario are the data owner.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

That's just ceph with extra steps.

Programmer Humor

Rules: