4 ms·

I went with Google Cloud, and my 1 to 10 user infrastructure is the same as 1million+ users: 1) Use Load Balancer + Autoscaler for all service layers. This ef

I went with Google Cloud, and my 1 to 10 user infrastructure is the same as 1million+ users: 1) Use Load Balancer + Autoscaler for all service layers. This effectively makes each layer a cloud of on-demand microservices. 2) Use Cloud Datastore: (NoSql) Maybe I lucked out that I don't have complex relational data to store, but Cloud Datastore abstracts out the entire DB layer, so I don't have to worry about scaling/reliability ever. ... aside from random devops stuff, that's pretty much it. The key point is to "cloudify" each layer of the infrastructure.

chillydawg 11y ago
Wonderful problem if you can get it :)
vgt 11y ago
This story doesn't get told enough. Most of Google Cloud is built to operate the same way with 1 user or 1m users. And in many cases, Google doesn't charge you for the "scaling vector", whereas AWS will, and will sometimes even require a separate product (see Firehose). Things like Load Balancer not requiring pre-warming, PubSub seamlessly scaling, Datastore and AppEngine seamlessly scaling. This is especially obvious on the product I work on, BigQuery: - We had a customer who did not do anything special, did not configure anything, didn't tell us, and ingested 4.5 million rows per second using our Streaming API for a few hours. - We frequently find customers who scale up to 1PB-size without ever talking to us. I can be their first point of contact at Google.. after they're at that scale. - Unlike traditional Databases, BigQuery lets you use thousands of cores for the few seconds your query needs them, and you only pay for the job. If I were to translate this to VM pricing, BigQuery gives you ability to near-instantly fire up thousands VMs, shut them down in 10 seconds, and only pay per-second. Customers like that kind of thing :) Disclosure: Shamelessly biased
lenkite 11y ago
Wholeheartedly agree! Google Cloud is so severely underrated as a platform for scalable web-apps. If you use the cloud data store and web-app common sense, there is no re-architecting required for users in the range of 100->million+. And _much_ cheaper and lesser operational overhead compared to EC2/AWS. The disadvatange is that you have to use the Google stack and API's, but for new apps this is worth it.

chillydawg 11y ago

Wonderful problem if you can get it :)

vgt 11y ago

This story doesn't get told enough. Most of Google Cloud is built to operate the same way with 1 user or 1m users. And in many cases, Google doesn't charge you for the "scaling vector", whereas AWS will, and will sometimes even require a separate product (see Firehose). Things like Load Balancer not requiring pre-warming, PubSub seamlessly scaling, Datastore and AppEngine seamlessly scaling. This is especially obvious on the product I work on, BigQuery: - We had a customer who did not do anything special, did not configure anything, didn't tell us, and ingested 4.5 million rows per second using our Streaming API for a few hours. - We frequently find customers who scale up to 1PB-size without ever talking to us. I can be their first point of contact at Google.. after they're at that scale. - Unlike traditional Databases, BigQuery lets you use thousands of cores for the few seconds your query needs them, and you only pay for the job. If I were to translate this to VM pricing, BigQuery gives you ability to near-instantly fire up thousands VMs, shut them down in 10 seconds, and only pay per-second. Customers like that kind of thing :) Disclosure: Shamelessly biased

lenkite 11y ago

Wholeheartedly agree! Google Cloud is so severely underrated as a platform for scalable web-apps. If you use the cloud data store and web-app common sense, there is no re-architecting required for users in the range of 100->million+. And _much_ cheaper and lesser operational overhead compared to EC2/AWS. The disadvatange is that you have to use the Google stack and API's, but for new apps this is worth it.