604

No we are not implementing blockchain to our backup systems (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by bigboismith@lemmy.world to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] db2@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

You need to implement the synergistic cloud blockchain.

[-] odium@programming.dev 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

*synergistic cloud quantum blockchain powered by AI

[-] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

ON THE METAVERSE

[-] Lepsea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

With 16x the details

[-] guycls@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Needs to be in production by next month.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Ah, so we can leverage acceleration towards actionable efficiency.

[-] adj16@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

M E E I N G

[-] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

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".

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

All those Meeings could have been an emai as well

[-] elegantgoat1@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Memail?

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago

Be fired || deal with customers

😰

[-] LetterboxPancake@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

Your meetings have agendas? That must be nice.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Knusper@feddit.de 41 points 1 year ago

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

[-] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sqw@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

suit customer may be worst customer

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

What even is this job? 😂

[-] vrkr@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Agenda?

[+] jet@hackertalks.com -27 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 13 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

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Could not have said it better myself

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Spanner.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Cloud only and closed source, right?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 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@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] pascal@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

That's just ceph with extra steps.

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023

604 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32483 readers

166 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml