Posted 2018-01-19 23:00:00 GMT
Tony Hoare, inventor of quicksort and many other foundational computer
science concepts, claimed a
billion-dollar mistake. It was the
invention of the null reference in 1965. The special value of zero
is used to indicate that a reference points nowhere. This is very
efficient. But it's not a mistake. The mistake is to try to ban
missing values. They often really are missing!
Java programmers particularly are afflicted by the NullPointerException, with millions of hits for this on Google. They abbreviate it to NPE, and bemoan it. They'll actually check whether they would throw it and then throw another exception instead — though Java code that distinguishes exception types is rare.
At a superficial level, the null pointer exception is the result of a mismatch of expectations: someone wrote some code that wanted a value, and someone called that code without giving it the value. Without looking deeper, an immediate obvious response is to systematically try to annotate or check that the values are really there when they are required.
The default behaviour in Objective C on SQL usually makes more sense to the output of the program, especially programs which should not crash, where null (or nil) just combines to form another null. Still, missing values disrupt the normal computation and thinking harder about what to do is often worth it.
There have been countless quixotic attempts to avoid this hard thinking: to ban null, to make complicated ways to declare that things are not nullable, and define away nullness. There is a pedantic tendency to try to harness punctuation elements like ? or define Option types — to try to force people to spend effort to admit that a value could be missing.
This is missing the point in the missing values: the hard problem isn't when someone is deliberately, maliciously trying to withhold information from the code they're calling. Instead, it's when they just don't have the information and are passing down what they have. The systematic response should generally not be to insist and demand the information. This would be convenient and make it very easy for one party in the exchange, as now we can write the code without figuring out what to do when there is incomplete information.
Unfortunately, incomplete information is the default state of the world. If the programmer won't deal with it, then the poor users of the program will have to, by entering bogus values. It's better to unambiguously indicate that something is missing rather than demand a lie!
Thousands of immigrants to the US have an invented first name, which is very inconvenient for them, because systems are set up to discourage a missing name: they are called Fnu. This is a bureaucratic consequence of a non-null annotation. It is used as an acronym for First Name Unknown, and in a bizarre twist of fate, for people who only have a first name — as their first name, so the last name is not null.
In the real world, incomplete information is the default. A convenient unambiguous representation is the null pointer, which doesn't take up space in terms of its binary representation or syntax — unlike the verbose imposition of Option types as in Haskell.
Incomplete information is the default with computers too. We need to learn to accept that. Recent language standardizations try to pretend it's not the case, forcing painful complexity on users.
The C++ variant, a type-safe union which was proposed in the last few years misses this lesson. In an opinionated attempt to ban null, there is no by default empty value for a variant. But a variant can be empty, they call it valueless_by_exception() and so code has to deal with it. This paradox afflicts non-nullable ! class fields in Kotlin too, which can be null before they're initialized. Requiring a null-check on something marked non-nullable is just silly.
Let's accept that information is incomplete, and be kinder when that's the case!
Post a comment
Posted 2017-12-29 23:00:00 GMT
Your disk is filling up, you run du | sort -n | less and identify the culprit, then rm -f. But df tells you that the disk space is still used.
According to POSIX,
the removal of the file contents shall be postponed until all
references to the file are closed. A program must have the file
open. Obviously, an easy way out is to kill all the programs using
it, but sometimes you can't kill the program because it's doing
something useful. First find which it is with lsof -nP +L1.
That tells you the pid and fd numbers. The file could actually be opened in multiple ways! However, you only need to truncate it once - by running : | sudo tee /proc/$pid/fd/$fd for one of these pairs.
Note that if the file is mmap'd the process might get SIGBUS. If it's just a logfile, this is unlikely!
Some people choose to first truncate before deleting logfiles to avoid chasing through this, i.e. : > $file; rm $file.
Post a comment
Posted 2017-11-01 23:00:00 GMT
I attended the LISA17 conference in San Francisco. Here are some very rough and opinionated notes from talks that interested me. If I made any mistakes let me know and please comment on the things I missed!
This tutorial was exceptional because the speaker has years of experience as one of the top Linux developers. Ted uses emacs!
Goals of performance tuning
Investigate bottlenecks with rigorous scientific method: change one parameter at a time. Take lots of notes and make haste slowly. Measurement tools can impact behaviour of the observed application.
Basic tools to start with
Example filesystem benchmark: fs_mark -s 10240 -n 1000 -d /mnt - creates 1000 files each 10kB in /mnt and does fsync after each. Can be greatly improved by relaxing sync guarantees. Use the exact benchmark for your application!
Cache flush commands are
ridiculously expensive. Google runs in
production with journal disabled, as it is so much faster and there is
a higher level consistency guaranteed by multi-machine
replication. This cross-machine cluster file-system also means RAID is
Ted Ts'o made this snap script for low impact performance monitoring extraction from production systems.
In terms of selecting hardware: note seek time is complicated and
should typically be reported statistically - worst case and
average. Low number offsets LBA at the outer diameter of the disk can
be much faster to seek. Therefore you can put your most used
partitions at the first offsets of the disk to get a lot more
performance - this is called
short-stroking and can be a cheap
way to get more performance. Filesystem software moves slowly as it
has to be reliable and hardware generally moves much faster.
HDDs at 15000rpm run at hot temperatures and use a lot of power; many
applications that used those have moved to SSDs. SSDs can also use a
lot of power. They tend to fail on write. Random writes can be very
slow - 0.5s average, 2s worst case for 4k random writes. You can wear
out an SSD by writing a lot. See Disks for Data
Centers in terms of advice about selecting hardware (Ted wrote
this). Think about how to use iops across the fleet (hot and cold
storage). The interface SATA 1.5Gbps or 3Gbps or PCIe may not be
important given that e.g. random writes are slow.
RAID does not
make sense generally in today's world (at Google scale) and can
suffer from read/modify/write cycles.
We can think about application specific file-systems, now we have containers. For example, ReiserFS is good for small files, XFS good for big RAID arrays and large files. Ext4 is not optimized for RAID.
Consider increasing journal size for small writes. Note Google disables the journal altogether.
Consider the multiqueue scheduler for very fast storage devices like NVMe.
Consider whether you want latency or throughput. Optimize the bandwidth delay product. Then remember that increasing window size takes memory; this can be tuned with net.core.rmem_max and net.core.wmem_max. Use nttcp to reduce buffer sizes as much as possible to avoid bufferbloat.
UDP might be a better bet.
However, we can push TCP to be low latency. Disable Nagle with setsockopt TCP_NODELAY. Enable TCP_QUICKACK to disable delayed acknowledgments.
Recommends considering an NFS appliance, e.g. NetApp.
Some tricks: use no_subtree_check. Bump up nfs threads to 128. Try to separate network and disk IO to different PCI buses - no longer necessarily relevant with PCIe. Make sure to use NFSv3 and increase rsize/wsize. Mount options: rw,intr. Make sure to tune for throughput, large mtu and jumbo frames.
NFSv4: only use NFSv4.1 on Linux 4+, see ;login magazine, June 2015.
If there is any swapping, first, try adding more memory. Add more and faster swap devices.
Paging will happen. majflts/s is rate of faults that result in IO. pgsteal/s is rate of recycling of page cache pages.
Try sar -W 3 and periodically send sysreq-m.
Note the memory hierarchy is important as closer caches are much faster.
Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) caches translation from virtual address to physical address. Can avoid up to six layers of lookup on 64-bit system - costing thousands of cycles. There are only 32 or 64 entries in the TLB in a modern system.
The jiffies rate can greatly affect TLB thrashing by controlling rate of task switches. Hugepages avoid consuming these entries. Kernel modules burn TLB entries while the originally loaded kernel does not.
The perf tool can show TLB and cache statistics.
Experimentation with eBPF.
For JVM consider GC and JIT. Size the heap.
Tools: strace, ltrace, valgrind, gprof, oprofile, perf (like truss, ktruss). Purify might not be as good as valgrind.
perf is the new hotness. Minimal overhead, should be safe in
production from a performance perspective. However, the advanced
introspection capabilities may be undesirable for security.
There are many interesting extensions - like the ext4slower program which shows all operations on ext4 that take longer than 10ms.
Userspace locking: make sure to use futex(2).
Consider CPU affinity.
Latency numbers that all programmers should know. Note this does not include random write for an SSD because that depends on a great many factors.
It's more addictive than pistachios!
It's time to shoot the engineer and put the darn thing into
Great way of learning about the whole stack!
This talk presented a valuable philosophy and attitude: that we should consider making repeatable re-usable reports. This goes against the grain of expectations around reporting which often frame reports as one-off tasks. The examples were very compelling.
Some background: R was written at Bell Labs by statisticians who were
very familiar with UN*X. Data is dirty.
The computations and
software for data analysis should be trustworthy: they should do what
they claim, and be seen to do so.
I've spent my entire career getting rid of spreadsheets.
Very rapid growth in CRAN R packages. Pipe operator %>%.
Used dplyr. Small repeatable pipelines for reports that can be reused. Very pretty code examples using dplyr and ggplot and the aforementioned pipe operators.
Your customers shouldn’t find problems before you do.
Onboarding a big new account with an expected 20k incidents per day, around 7M per year.
They wanted to test the load.
The only thing that behaves like
prod, is prod.
Chaos Engineering is about experiments in realistic conditions. PagerDuty has Failure Friday - where they expose systems to controlled experiments.
Balance business and engineering.
Decided to create a tool to simulate load.
Noticeable customer impact from first and second test but they still persisted which was quite brave. The talk was very honest about the interpersonal and organisational issues that the project faced.
Tried to explain why the staging environment is different from production to an idealistic questioner.
Eben Freeman's talk on queuing is really good!
Recommends a talk by Rasmussen on failure boundaries.
Failure boundary is nonlinear.
Hard to apply queuing theory to the real world of capacity and ops, as difficult to figure out how much time is spent queuing in real systems.
Add a crosstalk (coherence) penalty with a coefficient k as a quadratic term to the denominator in Amdahl's law. The penalty represents the cost of communication.
Defines load as concurrency.
Suggests that load-tests should try to fit the crosstalk penalty and Amdahl's law parameters. Claims that this fits quite well to many real world scaling problems with some abstract examples.
Without effort, documentation will be scattered across multiple systems and notes that the costs are paid in ramping up new people. We should invest in documentation.
SRE is not a rebranded ops, should not try to build an NOC.
Beyond performance, we can trace things like system calls to find out where something is happening - for example, the stacktrace of the code that is printing a message.
The JVM can cooperate by adding more tracepoints -XX:+ExtendedDTraceProbes.
The advantage of BPF as opposed to perf, is that BPF can filter and aggregate events in the kernel, which can make things much faster than perf, which just transmits events. BPF can calculate histograms and so on.
Needs recent kernels - 4.9 kernel for the perf_events attaching.
Many performance investigations can occur now without modifying any programs. For example, there are instrumentation scripts like dbslower that can print out which queries in MySQL and can be extended to other databases.
We can trace and find out the exact stacktrace where a query is printed.
Can trace GC: ustat tool and object creation with uobjnew.
Use opensnoop to find failed open syscalls. Then attach a trace for that specific error to a Java application.
Want to make it possible for people to bring their own software stack to run on the supercomputers at Los Alamos, and decided to explore containers. Unlike virtual machines, they do not have performance impact on storage or networking (Infiniband).
Recommends this LWN article: Namespaces in operation.
Docker with OverylayFS can be slow on HPC. Therefore they built a system called Charliecloud with minimal performance impact, and native file-system performance.
Sometimes don't have source code or access to logs.
Many basic problems: 5% of veterans incorrectly denied healthcare benefits from a single simple bug.
Great value delivered by bug bounty programs.
Meaningful contribution - hugely impactful, bipartisan problems. Looking for software engineers and site reliability engineers for short tours of duty.
CEO at Shopify once turned off a server as a manual chaos monkey.
Continued to work on resiliency, with gamedays. Then thought about automating the game days to ensure that issues remain fixed and don't regress.
Want to maintain authenticity.
ToxiProxy interposes latency, blackholing, and rejecting connections in the production systems and then is supported by automated testing in Ruby that asserts behaviour about the system.
Incident post-mortem fixes are checked and verified by injecting the faults again and checking application specific consequences. This confirms that fixes worked, and continue to work in the future.
Resiliency Matrix declares expected dependency between runtime systems. ToxiProxy tests allow one to validate that the dependency matrix truely reflects the production reality.
Common system performance tools like perf do not work well in containers, as the pid and filesystem namespaces are different. System wide statistics (e.g. for free memory) are published to containers which causes programs to make wrong assumptions: for example, Java does not understand how much memory is actually available in the container.
The situation is improving and there is ongoing integration of support for monitoring performance of containerized applications.
Understanding which limit is hit in the case of CPU containerization can be very confusing as there are many different limits.
PS. Brendan's talk from last year at LISA16 gives a general introduction to the advanced bpf tools: LISA16: Linux 4.X Tracing Tools: Using BPF Superpowers
Labs showing how to collect and query many system level properties like running processes from a distributed set of systems with a tool called osquery.
It can collect current state and also buffer logs of changes.
20k on-prem VMs.
Human communications take a lot of time and we need to be careful that we're really communicating.
Establish some strong properties: that all flows are authenticated and encrypted.
No trust in the network. Automation based policy based on a Ruby DSL and Chef that reconfigures iptables rules to add IPSec routes between application tiers.
Related to Google's BeyondCorp.
Beyond the control aspects, another value of the approach is observability. Mentioned that another way of doing this is Lyft Envoy.
Mostly build your own still.
Very thoughtful talk with a comprehensive coverage of various techniques.
EventBrite has 150M ticket sales per year. Very spiky traffic. Over one minute can quadruple.
Bulkheads: partition systems to prevent cascading failures.
Canary testing: gradual rollout of new applications.
Rate limiting. Understand capacity and control amount of work you accept.
Timeouts. Even have to timeout payment processors.
High energy and well presented talk.
Netflix: developers have root in production.
Should not be cargo-culted to places without same culture of trust and top quality talent.
Be careful about punching down. Recognise the weight that your
words carry coming from a successful company with specific
Culture of security conferences is toxic.
Adapt sample rate as you're watching your traffic, to scale observability infrastructure logarithmically with production. Sample rate should be recorded in event, and reduced in proportion to traffic.
Distributed tracing is the new
Use Twitter's anomaly detection R library.
Need to better at following checklists, sterile cockpit rule (kicking out unqualified people). Avoid normalization of deviance. Lots to learn from airline industry!
Think about telemetry.
Post a comment
Posted 2017-10-18 22:00:00 GMT
Square put on a great competition this year at the Grace Hopper conference. My girlfriend was attending and had solved a lot of the challenges but some of the high pointers were left.
The 6yte challenge hooked me. The task was to exploit an x86 32-bit Linux binary to print a file to the console - in only 6-bytes of machine code. Most opcodes on x86 are at least two bytes, so this means using at most three instructions. A tight budget!
The 6yte program was pretty simple. It memory mapped an executable region then decoded its command line argument as a hex string into this region, then jumped to it. It also printed out the addresses the program was loaded in.
On one side, this is much easier than exploiting a typical application nowadays, which probably marks writable memory non-executable. On the other hand, the 6yte program calls alarm() so that if you pause in the debugger, it will just crash, and it also uses sleep() to delay, so you can't immediately just try tons of things at random. These countermeasures made the contest much more fun for me.
I spent quite a while being misled by the printing of the program addresses into thinking I should use that. I wanted to call the puts function that is used elsewhere in the program to print out the string. In the process I learnt a lot about the Procedure Load Table. Trying to compute the relative address and then generate the right relative jump confused me. My plan was to spend one byte pushing edi onto the stack, and then five bytes jumping to puts(), or try to push the address of puts() onto the stack then jump to it, or something along those lines, but I just couldn't squeeze it into the remaining five bytes. Time to look more closely at the problem!
The disassembly for the jump to the decoded shellcode first loaded the target string into eax and then put it in edi
0x80488d2: 8d 85 68 ff ff ff lea eax, dword [ ebp +0xffffff68 ] 0x80488d8: 89 c7 mov edi, eax
Then we were given some handy register values. Comparing to Linux system call numbers, 4 is very helpful because it means write, and STDOUT_FILENO is 1. We are all set up to make a syscall!
0x80488da: ba 05 00 00 00 mov edx, 0x5 0x80488df: bb 01 00 00 00 mov ebx, 0x1 0x80488e4: b8 04 00 00 00 mov eax, 0x4 0x80488e9: ff 65 e8 jmp dword [ ebp + 0xffffffe8 ]
To execute the system call we need just two bytes cd80, but first we need to mov edi to ecx (with 89f9). This will unfortunately only print the first 5 bytes, as defined in edx, but we have two bytes of instructions left. I tried several ideas for increasing edx, like adding it to itself it and shifting it and so on, but then remembered the wonderful lea instruction on x86. This oddly named instruction doesn't actually access memory. It combines a mov, and a shift add - a limited multiply accumulate.
To find out opcodes, I was grepping objdump --source /lib32/libc-2.24.as that has a good sample of opcodes. A shortcut to avoid having to run an assembler. I discovered that ecx <- edi + xx is 8d4f05xx. This costs four bytes, and then the last two can be used to do the int 0x80 syscall. Not the neatest solution (Cong Wang has a much better one) but it let me read out the flag :)
By now I was pretty enthused with the competition - it was my first time crafting an exploit!
The next problem I tried was the Needle in the Haystack forensics challenge. Many years ago I implemented a vfat filesystem and fsck program, so I was very happy to see that it had a FAT12 filesystem. Inside was a Ruby on Rails project. There were some developer passwords in it which I immediately put into the submission box for the challenge - and was punished with a RickRoll. That teasing riled me and though it was late on Thursday night after my floundering around on the previous problem, my motivation redoubled.
It took me a while to realise that there was nothing in the Ruby on Rails project. I compared it against the base skeleton created by the Rails setup by default. This was my first CTF, I didn't know the conventions. I wasn't sure how much work was expected and what to focus on.
I tried a bunch of data recovery programs to dig out deleted files from the filesystem image, and found a tarball containing a git repository. I checked out all revisions in all branches, some of which were very temptingly labeled, but there didn't seem to be anything in it, so I tried a bunch more undeletion programs, and then switched to solve smaller challenges.
This gave me more idea of the conventions used in the competition. Reading the rubric for the haystack challenge I noticed it mentioned the word blob: that meant the git repo was the right track: and git fsck --lost-found gave up the answer.
This ended up being my favourite problem because it combined so many technologies (Ruby on Rails, FAT, git) and tantalized with apparent victory at multiple steps.
Other questions were also fun. I really enjoyed the SQL challenge - my first time doing a SQL injection, for which the SQLite function GROUP_CONCAT was very helpful. Then I found out that there was an easier version of 6yte without the bytes limit. Dammit!!
Now it was super late at night but team chocolates was #2 on the leaderboard. The challenges had all been so much fun and the VMs and setup for each were super well done, so I was very enthusiastic and feeling very hungry for the #1 spot. The next morning I was very excited as I thought the competition would end on that Friday (Alok eventually explained to me that we had an extra week) and I ran round to round up people to help. I didn't want to lose and was wondering about getting IDA Pro to solve the floppy challenge. Turns out Zach and Trammell were the right choices and chocolates got to #1 while I slept.
The contest was a ton of fun. It was my first time attempting shellcode and first time doing SQL injection. It makes me really appreciate the value of having a library of tools in security research. The field has developed its own culture, experts and can seem impenetrable (pun!). This CTF made it accessible to me in a way I never anticipated.
I learnt new techniques: about instruction coding, dynamic linking, and about process from Trammell. He showed me how to connect qemu in debug mode and Hopper. The way he approached the problem was very different to my unskilled initial expectations: I thought of trying to extract the logic into a sandbox and would have been tripped up on all the countermeasures in the code, whereas Trammell's confident holistic reverse engineering quickly neutralised them.
In terms of the mechanics, the contest framework, with VMs being spun up, was ambitious and worked perfectly. On a non-technical level, the jokes and teasing with RickRolls and countermeasures made the challenges personal. Solving the problems was joyous. It left me very impressed with the culture at Square, that visibly invested so much. The contest was run really well with great responsiveness on Slack, and I'd love to do more CTFs. Thanks Square!
Post a comment
Posted 2017-10-06 22:00:00 GMT
The Rust and C++ communities have embraced the idea of abstractions without runtime overhead. Object orientated programming encourages the idea of dynamic dispatch - at run-time choosing what to do based on the type. This is costly: a small cost as a decision has to be made at runtime and a potentially very expensive consequence: the compiler can't inline and propagate constants. However, it allows code to be written once which works with many types. So called zero cost abstractions avoid this by having the compiler figure out the specific concrete implementation behind the abstraction and then perform its optimizations with this information.
Runtime cost is actually only part of the cost of an abstraction. Even if there is no runtime cost, abstractions must provide value as they have other costs. An abstraction introduces a new concept and imposes a mental burden on the people working with it. In the ideal case, the abstraction is perfectly aligned with the problem domain: for example, it's often very convenient to be able to show something on the screen and get its dimensions independently of whether it is a photo or a video — abstracting over the difference reduces the amount of code written, and makes it clear that the code doesn't care about those details. This may actually be good for people debugging and reading the code.
Abstractions defined in the wrong way can make it hard to modify code: by muddling together unrelated things, by hiding useful details, increasing compile times, or just by confusing people and taking up mental space. These costs are less easy to measure than the runtime cost. However, they can be much more expensive. Debugging code from a stagnant project, where the build environment isn't readily available, is vastly harder when there are layers of abstraction. Abstractions obscure the answer to the question: what does this code actually do?
Weak engineers can try to
abstract away the parts of the
project they don't know how to accomplish. No value is being added
there. Another abuse is in wrapping existing code and interfaces
belonging to another project or group: this sort of wrapping layer is
very easy to write and gives an illusion of productivity, but means
that the people who own the code will now have to understand a wrapper
in order to help.
It's fun to reduce runtime costs. However, given the other costs are normally more significant, it's important to think of the value that the abstraction brings. An abstraction needs to be valuable even if there are no runtime costs. How much does it really help?
The worst abstractions abstract nothing, and provide no value: most commonly, a grand interface with a single implementation. They impose a cost on all readers — slogging through meaningless code, and slow people debugging production issues, who eventually have to understand that the interface is a mask for the real underlying implementation. Abstractions are costly. When reviewing or writing code, remember abstractions must provide value.
Post a comment
Posted 2017-05-05 22:00:00 GMT
Experienced, highly productive, senior engineers at companies like Google have told me they take weeks to prepare and practice for interviews as they don't use those skills in their jobs. Brainteasers are a complete waste of time but it's hard to find questions which are relevant to the job without being overly specific.
However, pagination is a great question: from ranked search to simply retrieving a list from a database, cross-machine APIs are very inefficient if they try to gather and send everything at once or just one thing at a time; instead they should fetch items in batches (an obvious but impractical extension of this idea is the lambda architecture). Pagination is great as an interview question because it is clearly related to the job, trips up software engineers regularly, and can be asked in calibrated stages. A huge amount of software engineering involves cross machine APIs nowadays, so the question is not specific to one area.
1. Screener question: API for fetching in pages of a given size from a fixed list from a single server. If the candidate can't do this then he or she will almost certainly struggle to implement any sort of API. Pivot to ask another simple question (like: intersect two lists of personal contact information), to assess whether the candidate was just confused by the framing.
2. Main question: API for fetching pages in a given size for a list from a single server where items can be deleted or inserted while the fetch is happening. It's helpful to give some business context: an extreme case is a list of messages in discussion forum app that supports deletes. This forces the solution away from the obvious idea of keeping a consistent snapshot of items for each client on the server. The client has state from previous pages that it can send to the server.
Once the candidate can solve the problem even if things are deleted or inserted at inconvenient times, to assess the quality of the solution: ask how much information needs to be communicated each fetch? Trivially, the client could send back everything it knows but that destroys the benefit of batching. Ideally, the client would send back a fixed size cursor. Secondly, how expensive is it for the server to compute the next page?
Some candidates get frustrated and try to demand that the DB, IPC or API framework provide this consistent paging. That would indeed be wonderfully convenient but would imply complex integration between the datastore and the IPC layer — and the applications specific tradeoffs around showing stale data. Concretely, consistent paging is not offered by popular frameworks for these reasons.
3. Advanced: ranked distributed results. Many systems are too big to have the list of items stored in a single server. For example, Internet search nowadays involves interrogating many distributed processes — more prosaically a hotel booking website might ask for inventory from many providers. Rather than waiting for all to respond the client should be updated with the information at hand. Items can suddenly be discovered that should be at the top of the list, how should that be handled? Larger scale examples demand a co-ordination process on the server side that aggregates and then sends the best results to the client. The extent of co-operation with knowledge of client's state depends on the context. How should resources be allocated to this coordination process and how can it be timed out?
The question provides good leveling because it is implicitly required for many straightforward tasks (like providing a scrollable list in an app) but then is a key outward facing behaviour of large systems. In terms of computer engineering it touches on a range of knowledge in a practical setting: data-structures and algorithms to coordinate state. The client effectively has a partial cache of the results, and caching is known to be hard. Finally, the extension to distributed ranking should spur a mature discussion of tradeoffs for more sophisticated engineers.
Post a comment
Posted 2017-03-12 23:00:00 GMT
The Kotlin programming language has all the features of Java, and supports all sorts of helpful things like extension functions, stackless inlines and named parameters. If you're starting a new project for the JVM, shouldn't you just use Kotlin?
In 2010, I asked the same question about Scala — the answer was no. Scala aims for a target that is not at all the practical minimalist Java. Instead, it's a hodgepodge of half-implemented ideas from C++ and Haskell. Astonishingly, a basic for loop in Scala is translated into a bytecode litterbug that spews garbage every iteration. Kotlin, on the other hand, keeps it clean and even makes it easy to invent new efficient iteration styles with guaranteed stackless inlining of lambdas (when annotated).
The features of Kotlin improve the life of a Java programmer. The language doesn't indulge in whimsical flights of fancy, like attempting to redefine what nullness is by inventing an Option datatype. The JVM has an efficient representation for a missing value: null. The only problem is that the Java language designers decided to crash the program by throwing a NullPointerException as the default response to this common condition. Objective C is much more sensible and just ignores operations on the nil object (though it does crash on NULL). Kotlin introduces syntax to keep track of what can be null, offers Objective C like behaviour with the ?. operator and provides :? to turn null into a default value — the Elvis operator. All in all, an elegant series of responses to the billion dollar mistake.
There are areas where Kotlin violates the Java principle that everything should be explicit: the most significant is extension methods, i.e. syntactic sugar to allow extra methods for other people's classes, and second with var (and val) to declare variables without repeating their type — like C++'s auto, Go's var, etc. Both features have been used successfully in C# for many years. In terms of understanding a program, these violations are less severe than defaulting all functions to be virtual — which Java started with — allowing child classes to confusingly modify their parent's intentions.
The Android Kotlin extension methods remove so much boilerplate and avoid the kind of nasty surprise that Scala introduces (the Kotlin runtime is under a megabyte). In the end, they make the intention of the programmer much clearer by skipping the ceremony imposed by badly designed APIs.
Java is deliberately not programmer-orientated. That's the point of using it — it was designed to restrict the kind of trouble programmers can get themselves into. If you're stuck with the JVM — and as more than 80% of smartphones run Android, we all are — the extra help that Kotlin affords in terms of null-checking and syntactic sugar actually make programs clearer and safer. The complicated excesses and action at a distance of C++ or Ruby are avoided. Admittedly, you can't write programs so succinctly as Ruby or with anything close to C++'s performance, but the bar we are evaluating is Java. Is Kotlin a better Java?
Yes. Yes, you should use Kotlin despite it being new, and despite the consequent teething problems (an example, promptly bug-fixed). The pace of improvement, incredible integration with IntelliJ (Android Studio) and great pragmatic design make it a winner: Kotlin swiftly (pun intended) to the rescue!
Post a comment
Posted 2017-03-03 23:00:00 GMT
Having conducted hundreds of software and other interviews and trained many interviewers, I've seen a ton of CVs. The one thing that will more or less guarantee a good interview performance is a strong TopCoder record.
The ability to solve algorithm puzzles under stress and time pressure is exactly what the coding interviews are about, and TopCoder tests these abilities at the highest levels. After some point in the rankings, it isn't just into people who can think fast and solve puzzles. The best players train regularly and continually improve, and in fact have to put in incredible discipline to outperform very dedicated opponents. These engineers in the end have the staying power to solve very complex system problems and the flexibility to attack them with novel approaches where necessary.
Only a small number of people can be the best at TopCoder. A wider pool of engineers can do a good job. Did they do a good job in the past? Good CVs boast quantitative production or business metric improvements. Bad ones describe techniques applied.
Experience isn't equally granted over time: for example, an engineer can work for years on an implementation that never goes to production and not really learn anything and just get set in his or her ways. The more feedback an engineer receives, and learns from, the more experience they get. People who have taken charge and launched an app or maintained a popular open source project in their spare time might have more real technical experience than a tech lead at a big company.
Post a comment
Posted 2016-10-05 01:11:00 GMT
Making big systems out of many computers, people often end up with lower reliability than with a single computer. Also amusingly they may be slower. There's a big temptation to avoid a single point of failure, by introducing multiple points of failure - one computer is actually quite unlikely to fail, but with many failures are common. If one assumes that the failures are uncorrelated, and there's some way to transparently switch over, then having multiple machines might make sense and it's an obvious goal. Who wants to admit that a single hard drive breaking took down a big website for a few hours?
Embarrassing though it would be, in attempting to make it impossible for a single machine to take things down, engineers actually build such complex systems that the bugs in them take things down far more than a single machine ever would. The chance of failure is increased with software complexity and likely to be correlated between machines. Distributed systems are much more complex by their nature so there is a correspondingly high software engineering cost to making them reliable. With many machines, there are many failures, and working round all the complicated correlated consequences of them can keep a big team happily in work and on-call.
A typical example of adding unreliability in the name of reliability, is the use of distributed consensus - often embodied by Zookeeper. Operationally, if the system is ever mis-configured or runs out of disk space the Zookeeper will stop working aggressively. It offers guarantees on avoiding inconsistency but not achieving uptime so perhaps this is the right choice. Unfortunately, the Paxos algorithm is vulnerable to never finding consensus when hosts are coming in and out of action, which makes sense given that consensus needs people to stick around. In human affairs we deputize a leader to take the lead in times where a quick decision is needed. Having a single old-school replicated SQL DB to provide consistency is not hip but typically would get more 9s of uptime and be more manageable in a crisis.
It can be hard to grasp when trying to deal with heavily virtualized environments where the connection between the services and the systems they run on is deliberately weak, but there's often actually one place where a single point of failure is fine: the device the person using to connect to the system. And in fact it's unavoidable. After all, if the phone you're using just crashes then you can't expect to keep using a remote service without reconnecting. Other failures are less acceptable.
By an end-to-end argument the retries and recovery should therefore be concentrated in the machines the people are operating directly, and any other reliability measures should be seen purely as for performance. Simplicity isn't easy for junior engineers, eager to make their names with a heavily acronymed agglomeration of frameworks and a many tiered architecture - but it leads to really great results.
Post a comment
Posted 2016-06-21 10:45:00 GMT
Testing improves software. So much so that lack of unit tests is called technical debt and blanket statements from celebrated engineers like
A good test
— covers the code that runs in production
— tests behaviour that actually matters
— does not fail for spurious reasons or when code is refactored
For example, I made a change to the date parsing function in Wine, Here adding a unit test to record the externally defined behaviour is uncontroversial.
Tests do take time. The MS paper suggests that they add about 15-35% more development time. If correctness is not a priority (and it can be reasonable for it not to be) then adding automatic tests could be a bad use of resources: the chance of the project surviving might be low and depend only on a demo, so taking on technical debt is actually the right choice. More importantly, tests take time from other people: especially if some subjective and unimportant behaviour is enshrined in a test, then the poor people who come later to modify the code will suffer. This is especially true for engineers who aren't confident making sweeping refactorings, so that adding or removing a parameter from an internal function is turned into (for them) a tiresome project. The glib answer is not to accept contributions from these people, but that's really sad — it means rejecting people from diverse backgrounds with specialised skills (just not fluent coding) who would contribute meaningfully otherwise.
Unit tests in particular can enshrine a sort of circular thinking: a test is defined as the observed behaviour of a function, without thinking about whether that behaviour is the right behaviour. For example this change I made to Pandas involved more changing of test code than real code that people will use. This balance of effort causes less time to be spent on improving the behaviour.
In my experience, the worst effect of automatic tests is the shortcut they give to engineers — that a change is correct if the tests pass. Without tests, it's obvious that one must think hard about the correctness of a change and try to validate it: with tests, this validation step is easy to rationalise. In this way, bugs are shipped to production that would have been easy to catch by just running the software once in a setting closer to the production one.
It's hard to write a good test and so, so much easier to write a bad
test that is tautologically correct, and avoids all behaviour relevant
to production. These bad tests are easy to skip in code review as
they're typically boring to read, but give a warm fuzzy feeling that
things are being tested — when they're not. Rather than counting
the coverage of tests as a metric, we could improve it by using
test coverage of the real code that runs in production.
Unfortunately, these are not the same thing. False confidence
from irrelevant tests measurably reduces reliability.
Post a comment