Hypergrowth isn’t always easy

Interesting post. I appreciate their candor and self-criticism, but, as a customer, I'm consistently surprised by how robust Tailscale ends up being, and how rarely I've experienced an issue that actually broke my tailnet. The sort of downtime that might keep me from accessing the admin tool or something else like that is rare enough, but my nodes have almost (?) never failed to talk to each other. Pretty great.

Caveat: I have a very small tailnet (<100 nodes). Anyone running with thousands of nodes may have a very different experience where inconvenience might be existential.

No issues using headscale and selfhosted derp servers.

Tailscale is great technology and protocol and facilitates decentralisation.

Hypergrowth is a synonym for unsustainable growth. The headline here is business breaks tech, again.

Why is the cover image for the post a cartoon 69 position?

Not my deviantart ass thinking hypergrowth meant something else

hypergrowth is very hard. First to be able to get there and then, once there, to keep up offering quality services.

In addition hypergrowth isn't needed. Grow naturally and healthy or just be sustainable, that's okay too.

Kind of annoying to read. No, the P in CAP theorem isn’t when the client can’t connect to your unavailable service. That would be the A. Maybe it was down because of a P on your side, but don’t start blaming your downtime on network partitions between the client and your service.

Edit: your service going down and not being able to take requests from clients does not a network partition make

[dead]