alt Hacker NewsThis is something that always bothered me while I was working at Google too: we had an amazing compute and storage infrastructure that kept getting crazier and crazier over the years (in terms of performance, scalability and redundancy) but everything in operations felt slow because of the massive size of binaries. Running a command line binary? Slow. Building a binary for deployment? Slow. Deploying a binary? Slow.
The answer to an ever-increasing size of binaries was always "let's make the infrastructure scale up!" instead of "let's... not do this crazy thing maybe?". By the time I left, there were some new initiatives towards the latter and the feeling that "maybe we should have put limits much earlier" but retrofitting limits into the existing bloat was going to be exceedingly difficult.
There's a lot of tooling built on static binaries:
- google-wide profiling: the core C++ team can collect data on how much of fleet CPU % is spent in absl::flat_hash_map re-bucketing (you can find papers on this publicly)
- crashdump telemetry
- dapper stack trace -> codesearch
Borg literally had to pin the bash version because letting the bash version float caused bugs. I can't imagine how much harder debugging L7 proxy issues would be if I had to follow a .so rabbit hole.
I can believe shrinking binary size would solve a lot of problems, and I can imagine ways to solve the .so versioning problem, but for every problem you mention I can name multiple other probable causes (eg was startup time really execvp time, or was it networked deps like FFs).