jenders

This

Spend any amount of time talking to customers and you may find that many of them, maybe even most, don't want the responsibility of maintaining infrastructure. They want "insert money, get more software." The few that run their own infrastructure often come back to SaaS after realizing they made a monkey's paw wish. Many aren't ready for, or interested in, that level of involvement and responsibility. It's a burden, and the economies of scale available to software make marginal scaling more efficient when done by the provider. Not always, but it's often a perfect fit.

But only a bad salesman dictates what the customer needs— talk to your customers.

wrt (5): Is it not good for the user base at large or is it not good for users who choose to live as nomads on a boat?

I feel like we have to be realistic about the problems we’re solving here—-is the goal to optimize for 95% of users or 100%? If 100%, I have to ask if the tradeoffs for the last 5% of users are worth the squeeze to the 95%? SaaS really is the right solution for many people; not all but many.

I’m not advocating for anything but for distros to stop recommending swap partitions. I advocate for right-sizing your hardware to predicable workloads and not using swap at all. On your pet servers or desktops where the workload is experimental or wildly unpredictable, swap files make more sense over partitions.

This is a mechanism post not a policy post. If you want to see my take on swap, see my last response on that gift.

Swap is not recommended on servers where responsiveness and determinism are more important than failure recovery of any one server.

I love this kind of stuff. Great share

Looks like this was added in util-linux 2.40. Works with btrfs correctly too! Added.

+1. This test and its conclusions are flawed. See CAV/CLV

you love to see it

What subsystem are you referring to?

I wrote this years ago before LLMs made it easy to validate guesswork. I’ll update! Good call

Ah the old HN hug. I’ll fix it