Having never heard of this before, it came as a shock. Its so simple that seems almost like a trick but its really not. I actually do like the question for that reason. Sometimes in the real world solutions are that simple as its a good trait to be able to recognize it. I answered the question well (or so I think), but I didnt pick up the simple refactor. If I was coding in front a computer I would have seen it in about 5 minutes but its different when you’re on a whiteboard in front of two senior architects. So heres the question:

Write a program that prints the numbers from 1 to 100. But for multiples of three print “Fizz” instead of the number and for the multiples of five print “Buzz”. For numbers which are multiples of both three and five print “FizzBuzz”.

So here’s what I came up with (in pseduo code):


for ( int i = 1 ; i <= 100; i ++ ) {
   if (i % 15 == 0 ) print "FizzBuzz";
   elseif (i % 3 == 0 ) print "Fizz";
   elseif (i % 5 == 0 ) print "Buzz";
   else print i;
}


So? Do you see it? Do you see the ‘refactor’ if it were (ignoring the ugly switch, design patterns, or thread safety for that matter)? Although the change is small change it does make a difference. Keep in mind this is pseudo code but they wanted me to see that if I cant print “Fizz” and “Buzz” in two separate ‘if’ blocks.


for ( int i = 1 ; i <= 100; i ++ ) {
   if (i % 3 == 0 ) print "Fizz";
   if (i % 5 == 0 ) print "Buzz";

   otherwise print i;
}


This is now one of my favorite books on Java which I am probably going to read again just to be sure I have soaked up as much information as I can. This is a practical book written by a practical person who understands his audience, engineers. He is straight to the point with his code examples and doesnt bore you to death explaining every little detail or referencing lines of code and functions 8 pages back. I wish more technical writers would be this concise and straight to the point. There is something to be said for any technical writer who can get their message across with fewer words. No where else can I think of a better example of the old adage “less is more”. I would highly recommend this book to any engineer, especially associates.

Unfortunately for us we dont have a full time operations team at the moment. Its me really. The engineer, the frontend web developer, and admin. Im lucky that I saw it, put two-and-two together, and stopped it.

Anywho, this script kiddie managed to actually take down our appservers because our servlet container was only set to use 512 MB of RAM! This was not my doing although it has been operating fine for almost 2 years. Anyway, when we saw the increased spike in traffic we said great, maybe Googebot has come back around to save us from our perpetual Google dance. I noticed the increase in bot activity but thought nothing of it and went home. Little did I know it wasnt Googlebot.

The next day, i.e. today, I got into work to find our leads were still down but our page views were up. Thats odd? How and why could this be happening? I knew this wasnt people traffic because Google’s Urchin Tracker wasnt registering the requests because its Javascript (bots done fire it). It had to be a malicious user. I dug through yesterday’s logs and it turned out to be some script kiddie in Australia making about 25 requests per second from one IP address. What? No DDoS? Anyway, our machines performed well after more memory was allocated but they were thrashing a little.

Page load time

CPU load

The Bay Area BMW 2002 car show is coming up this Saturday so in preparation to avoid flame wars I have cleaned up the car a little. Everything is coming together quite well, including the tuning. The Bay Area 2002 Show and Swap may be the biggest in the world with over 100 cars attending. Its incredible to see so many of these cars so well cared for. Here are some photos for those of you who cant make it to the show.

After my discussion with Yonik Seeley, one of the Solr developers, I have to come to realize the way I was faceting was not correct. Although it worked, it did not work for speed and scalability. The proper way to query by facets is to use the ‘fq’ field as many times as needed. Each of these result sets is then cached, speeding up the next query as you add more facets. In line with the example I have been posting about, things have many tags, here is an example. When you run this query you will get anything with the phrase ’stuff’ that is also tagged with ‘things’ and ‘junk’.

q=stuff&rows=10&facet=true&facet.field=tagsFaceted&fq=things&fq=junk

I learned this the hard way at work probably about 8 months back. Take a guess which of the two Google doesnt like and cant understand? Thats right, dont use underscores ‘_’ or camel case ‘camelCase’ in your URL’s! Although URL’s arent the most important part of your site but they definitely do have an impact. To Google, as dash represents a space and thats what you should live by.

Need proof? Notice anything different about the two result sets?

http://www.google.com/search?q=main+page
http://www.google.com/search?q=main_page

Thats right. They are two different entities. The underscore doesnt create a space and therefore is NOT stemmed. This is a problem inherent to MediaWiki (my favorite wiki). Although wiki’s werent made for this purpose they have surely evolved into something different. Actually, as I am writing this now I just got the thought to make an Apache rewrite proxy to change the underscores to dashes. If I get it to work I’ll post my findings.

Learn from my mistakes. If you have the chance to make a rewrite or better yet start from scratch use dashes.