Daily Link

  • Minimal Viable Bureaucracy
  • Lock your knees – Habit change is hard. “While the initial trigger (or motivation) is the catalyst that starts the ball rolling, for the change to really manifest into habit forming behavior, you need periodic and regular triggers that keep bringing you back to the specific activity.”
  • Ferrari restructuring must allow engineers to be creative. – Winning, like continuous deployment or any other software activity, is a habit and habits must be formed and maintained. “Ferrari has lost the winning habit and he needs to recreate the culture that existed there under Jean Todt.”
  • Apache Mesos – Cluster management.
  • Erlang 17.1 is out – or via Erlang Solutions.
  • Jim Barksdale quotes:

    “If it works, it’s a product. If it doesn’t, it’s market research.”

    “In the battle between the bear and the alligator, what determines the victor is the terrain.”

  • Creating the future
    “Everything we see is the result of someone, at some point, wondering ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if…?’ or ‘I wonder if….? and they had the guts and the courage to go for it.”
    “We cannot programme our GPS to a destination that doesn’t exist.”

    In talking to a senior executive at a Fortune 500 company about a promotion to VP that the executive doesn’t want to take because of all that accepting the VP position would require:
    Executive: If I say no it will ruin my career
    Gerald: But if you say yes it will ruin your life, which is worse?

  • Site Reliability Engineering

    “The solution that we have in SRE — and it’s worked extremely well — is an error budget. An error budget stems from this basic observation: 100% is the wrong reliability target for basically everything. Perhaps a pacemaker is a good exception! But, in general, for any software service or system you can think of, 100% is not the right reliability target because no user can tell the difference between a system being 100% available and, let’s say, 99.999% available. Because typically there are so many other things that sit in between the user and the software service that you’re running that the marginal difference is lost in the noise of everything else that can go wrong.

    If 100% is the wrong reliability target for a system, what, then, is the right reliability target for the system? I propose that’s a product question. It’s not a technical question at all. It’s a question of what will the users be happy with, given how much they’re paying, whether it’s direct or indirect, and what their alternatives are.

    The business or the product must establish what the availability target is for the system. Once you’ve done that, one minus the availability target is what we call the error budget; if it’s 99.99% available, that means that it’s 0.01% unavailable. Now we are allowed to have .01% unavailability and this is a budget. We can spend it on anything we want, as long as we don’t overspend it”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>