| Go in Production | hcatlin | 8/30/12 6:08 PM | I've posted before, but thought I should do a bit of a follow-up. 100% of our production system is now running Go as 95% of our application (C being the other bits). Not side bits, but our critical path. We're running around 800 million requests a month through our various public-facing sites run on more than 500 servers on AWS. Sites we power that are in pure-Go.. ...and a lot more. We are running this on our production servers, but we also have a local development env that our customers run and that is compiled in all three major operating systems. We have a binary executable available for Linux, Mac OSX, and *gasp* Windows! Since 1.0, Go has been ridiculously stable for us and the decision to switch has been one of the better decisions we've made as a business. The power and speed of a compiled language, with the flexibility and agility that we've come to expect in a modern language. -Hampton Catlin. VP of Technology, Moovweb PS: Also included a photo of our team with various Gopher talisman's we keep around. PPS: If you are in SF and want to chat with us, send me an email and we'll chat! |
| Re: [go-nuts] Go in Production | Andrew Gerrand | 8/30/12 6:42 PM | Great news! Thanks for sharing.
|
| Re: Go in Production | ISockGo | 8/30/12 7:15 PM | Great work brother, Keep rocking Goians :). I have checked the site, looks really good and fast. What you have used as database. |
| Re: Go in Production | dcr...@gmail.com | 8/30/12 8:20 PM | I'd be curious to here more about the server breakdown and any kind of numbers you can give regarding normal load/request cycles. For example, last time we did some math, we were doing about 250m requests to Python a day, and we had less than 200 machines (serving the entirety of our applications, most of which wasnt the actual Python web machines). That said, we now have about 300 machines and do a little over 5 billion "monthly requests" which I'd constitute as pageviews, though I'm not sure how many requests hit Python day to day off hand. |
| Re: Go in Production | brad clawsie | 8/30/12 8:48 PM | congrats. i have also been using Go heavily in an industrial context with great results. well thought-out typing, concurrency, and great unicode support out of the box. great libraries for building network apps and wrangling json. etc etc i haven't had this much productive fun with a tool since i first picked up perl in the mid 90s. glad to hear it has been a success for you too
|
| Re: Go in Production | tjholo...@gmail.com | 8/30/12 9:08 PM | hot! I love a lot of things about Go, I'm not sure I can overcome some of the conventions, sounds silly since most of that is just aesthetics but uppercase-everything seems really funky, realllllly not a fan of the python-style imports either that's a major downside IMO |
| Re: [go-nuts] Go in Production | Uriel DeLarge | 8/30/12 9:10 PM | On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:08 AM, hampton catlin <hca...@gmail.com> wrote:Awesome! And you just made it to the Hacker News front page: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4457854 |
| Re: Go in Production | maxim...@gmail.com | 8/30/12 9:13 PM | +1 for the break down!
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | notedit | 8/30/12 10:15 PM | 2012/8/31 <tjholo...@gmail.com>
hope there is go web framework like express. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah | 8/30/12 10:39 PM | On Friday, 31 August 2012 10:45:32 UTC+5:30, notedit wrote: Go has pat.go https://github.com/bmizerany/pat from the author of Sinatra/Ruby. Related thread https://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/browse_thread/thread/f66405afb4f71a88 |
| Re: Go in Production | R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah | 8/30/12 10:41 PM | On Friday, 31 August 2012 06:38:43 UTC+5:30, hcatlin wrote: <snip>
<snip> Can you share some insights about the technology/framework? HTTP header signatures don't give any clue. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Dave Cheney | 8/30/12 10:42 PM | http://gorilla-web.appspot.com/
It is not a framework, but a toolkit. That is a good thing. If you are looking for an application server, Google App Engine offers everything that opens and shuts. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:05 PM | Go doesn't have those problems. In that way it is nothing like C. C
was about speed above all else; Go is about safety..and speed. Statically typed/compiled languages are, or at least can be, much safer than dynamic ones. That's not to say there aren't security vulnerabilities -- buffer overflows, non-nil-terminated strings, etc. just aren't what you need to worry about. I'm honestly a lot more worried about using monstrous Python/Ruby frameworks than Go and its standard library. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:38 AM, <adi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Congrats - but how proven is the security aspect? Given how easy it has been > in the past to cause overflow/underflow attacks on C style compile > languages, are you not worried? > >> Sites we power that are in pure-Go.. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] | 8/30/12 11:05 PM | gah yeah those are the kinds of conventions I dont think I can deal with.
could have been so much easier to read:
at worst, capitals all over creates a lot of noise, but I've heard how explicit the Go community is about conventions so I haven't felt tempted to stray from that haha.. plus the massive stdlib kinda forces you to use these same conventions regardless of
how you feel about them. import() is absolutely terrible though IMHO, I'm not sure if there would have been technical limitations with something more explicit but the whole "import everything"
concept is really bad |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:07 PM | Not to be rude, but do you know what the capitalization means? It's a
clean way to distinguish what's exported from what isn't. I don't know of anything's that's less noisy. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:09 PM | And it's not "exported" or "unexported" in a Python sense where
appending an underscore conveys you don't want people to use a given function. Types and functions that begin with a lower-case letter cannot be used by other packages. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:15 PM | > I'm not sure if there would have been technical limitations with something more explicit but the whole "import everything" concept is really badWhat do you mean? Imported packages are qualified in Go, e.g. import foo; foo.Foo(); foo.Bar(). It doesn't matter if you can't specify that you're only using a class or 2-3 functions from a package--only what's actually needed to run your program will be included anyway. In any case, these things are not conventions. They actually mean something in Go.
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] | 8/30/12 11:35 PM | I'm just looking at it from an outsiders perspective since I haven't used it for much. That makes more sense now, though it's still a little odd (to me at least), vs having some "export" keyword or
similar which conveys meaning and is explicit, binding meaning to the casing of an identifier is I guess only weird coming from other languages where that's convention only. Do imported packages just define whatever they like? Or must all values hang off
of one identifier? Compared to something explicit like "foo = require('bar')" it's not immediately obvious, though it seems like Go is using the last path segment? :s I'll just shut up and go read docs haha, sorry for the noise
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:43 PM | If you just import a package, it's qualified by its package name (from
the source files), e.g. "foo". You can import a package with a custom qualifier like so: import bar "github.com/baz/foo" bar.Foo() bar.Bar() ... I found that the upper-case exporting and "backwards" variable declaration seemed odd as well, but only until I had used the language for a while (a couple of hours.) A lot of these "odd" choices will "click"/make sense quickly. They're just odd because you're conditioned to things that will actually seem more tedious in retrospect, IMO. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:35 AM, vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | brainman | 8/30/12 11:45 PM | On Friday, 31 August 2012 16:35:08 UTC+10, vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] wrote: ... it's still a little odd (to me at least), vs having some "export" keyword or Sure thing. But "export" keyword could be pages away (or even in a different source file) from where you are looking now. Capital letter is right there in your face. Alex |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Patrick Mylund Nielsen | 8/30/12 11:49 PM | I write a lot of Haskell as well. I very rarely add a new type and
func and remember to add it to the exports list at the top before trying to compile. I can't remember actually missing it in Go, because if I'm calling a lower-cased function from another package, I know I've missed something. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] | 8/30/12 11:54 PM | yeah I can't say I'd like listing them at the top like erlang etc either, though I really don't mind exports.foo = bar in node-land, that's good that you can rename the import though I was worried it was more like Ruby. Doesn't hurt
to try new things! I'll have to dig into it some more
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Rémy Oudompheng | 8/31/12 12:09 AM | On 2012/8/31 vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] <t...@vision-media.ca> wrote:Both lines of code are totally unreadable to me. Rémy. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] | 8/31/12 12:16 AM | punctuation doesn't bother me at all I prefer that to something like coffeescript, but capitalization will definitely take some getting used to
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | kortschak | 8/31/12 12:36 AM | When I read that comment, I though he was making a joke...
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | David Leimbach | 8/31/12 12:41 AM | Iam going to try to port Go to our BSD like stuff at work based on Devon's FreeBSD stuff one of these dang days and see what kind of stuff we can do here. There's mostly C, C++ and python today, but there is some trickiness with Python and all the dependencies (mostly libraries and memory consumption). Just a skunkworks idea for now but I think we've got some good opportunities here to leverage Go. Glad to see it's going well for others! |
| Re: Go in Production | sadegh...@gmail.com | 8/31/12 5:59 AM | It is so promising and motivating. Now I'm dreaming of posting something like this, after my start-up comes in production phase :) |
| Re: Go in Production | hcatlin | 8/31/12 9:49 AM | I'll just hop in to comment on the # of servers thing... I can't give specific breakdowns, but basically, not all of those are request churning machines, many are management and test and routing machines, and we massively over provision most of our customers to help ensure reliability and redundancy. We definitely are not attempting to maximize requests-to-machines at this point. However, request speed and latency and redundancy are our primary focus. And, the non-cached requests are relatively processor heavy... And, I will make one correction for myself... We are running rails as our deploy and user management server, etc. I don't count that in our "critical path" flow, aka customer uptime isn't measured by our user front-end, but by the stability of their hosted application. And the C is executed via CGO. -hampton. On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:20:21 PM UTC-7, dcr...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be curious to here more about the server breakdown and any kind of numbers you can give regarding normal load/request cycles. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Kyle Lemons | 8/31/12 10:37 AM | On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
Were this to come before me in a code review, I'm pretty sure I'd suggest fmt.Fprintf(w, "Hello, %s!", req.FormValue("name"))
|
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Paul | 8/31/12 11:50 AM | Thank you very much for that very interesting success story about using Go on an industrial scale. +1 |
| Re: Go in Production | vance....@gmail.com | 8/31/12 4:39 PM | switch from what? java? eww. |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | Richard Zhang | 8/31/12 5:53 PM | Haha just something to get used to. I was a big fan for Node but now like Go more. What I did lately was rewrote a node app in java, and rewrote a java app in go lol... Both are small tasks though, for different reasons. Capitalization instead of exports feels kind of neat to me :D Really glad to see people like you interested in go! Expecting stream of awesome packages... :D On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:16:32 AM UTC-7, vision media [ Tj Holowaychuk ] wrote: punctuation doesn't bother me at all I prefer that to something like coffeescript, but |
| Re: Go in Production | Shuai Lin | 8/31/12 6:29 PM | 在 2012年8月31日星期五UTC+8上午9时08分43秒，hcatlin写道： Yeah, go build/go test is so fast. |
| Re: Go in Production | mortdeus | 9/4/12 6:32 AM | I am a gopher. On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:15:37 PM UTC-5, ISockGo wrote: Great work brother, Keep rocking Goians :). I have checked the site, looks really good and fast. What you have used as database. |
| Re: Go in Production | ISockGo | 9/7/12 2:16 PM | I checked the home page source and have no idea why it's showing this JAVA thing.. <!-- Server Date: 09/06/2012 03:42:34 EDT Content Version: 2.14.8 Revision: 227974 Content Build Date: Thu Aug 30 17:12:24 EDT 2012 Application Version: 12G.32.1 from 2.14.8 Application Build Date: Thu Aug 30 17:10:31 EDT 2012 SVN Revision: 227974 Pagecode: xx-xx-xx-xx.index Secure: false Request URI: /index.jsp Server Physical Name: fsgwws182Node_B Server Clone Name: macys_B_c01_s182_m06 JSP Page Encoding: ISO-8859-1 --> |
| Re: [go-nuts] Re: Go in Production | hcatlin | 9/8/12 8:25 AM | We're a on-demand transformation proxy. That client must have a desktop site that is powered by Java. Check the headers for moovweb related headers... but we try to leave our fingerprints off things.
-hampton.
|