5 ms·

StackOverflow runs on a 3.33 Ghz quad core x 2, 48 GB RAM, 6 drive RAID 10 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/12/stack-overflow-rack-glamour-shots/ http://blog

by rythie 17y ago

StackOverflow runs on a 3.33 Ghz quad core x 2, 48 GB RAM, 6 drive RAID 10 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/12/stack-overflow-rack-glamour-shots/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/12/stack-overflow-rack-gl... So if Digg is as 10x times the size they would need a (assuming perfect scaling) 3.33 Ghz quad core x 20, 480 GB RAM, 60 drive RAID 10 Oh, but you can't get anything more than 8 sockets in x86, and Windows only runs on x86 now. So assuming you switch away from Windows, you'll need a Sun or IBM for that. Sun's kit is only Dual-Core and the processors aren't as fast (either per Ghz or in clockrate), so here is the 64 CPU model you'd need and it's already got 64 disks: "For a 64-processor gorilla, 2.4 GHz SPARCVI dual-core chips, 6 MB of on-chip L2 cache, 128 GB of memory and a 64 x 73 GB SAS drive raise the price tag to $10,100,320." http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/3688771/Server-Snapshot-SPARC-Enterprise-M8000-M9000-Servers.htm http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/article.php/3688771/Serv... And not forgetting you'll probably want to upgrade the 128GB of memory it comes with and you'll need two of these really (the other for failover)

mistermann 17y ago
"Windows only runs on x86 now"? PlentyOfFish.com is, according to these posts: http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scali... ...running: 512 GB of RAM, 32 CPU’s, SQLServer 2008 and Windows 2008 $10 Million? Try ~$100,000. (Granted, the article you linked was from 2007). My company spends >$10k on fricking meetings to discuss whether they should spend $20k on a server (as well as the other technical details they are unqualifed to be discussing). Of course, anyone that actually knows anything about it is not welcome at these meetings. :)
- jbellis 17y ago
  The 32 CPU quote [originally from POF's blog and repeated w/o correction elsewhere] is incorrect; the HP server in question has 8 quad-core _CPUs_, for a total of 32 _cores_. So still a factor of 2.5 away from our hypothetical 80 core requirement, and not a refutation of GP's claim that x86 maxes out at 8 sockets.
ob 17y ago
That doesn't make any sense. You're assuming that they have 10 times the content, need 10 times the processing power, and that they derive no advantages to caching (from 48 GB RAM to 480 GB RAM). That is not how capacity planning works at all.
- jbellis 17y ago
  The scenario is 10x the traffic, not 10x the content. And given that Digg is an update-heavy site for all the voting (which affects how pages are rendered for your friends) assuming that caching is a magic wand here seems bogus.

by rythie 17y ago

mistermann 17y ago

"Windows only runs on x86 now"? PlentyOfFish.com is, according to these posts: http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scali... ...running: 512 GB of RAM, 32 CPU’s, SQLServer 2008 and Windows 2008 $10 Million? Try ~$100,000. (Granted, the article you linked was from 2007). My company spends >$10k on fricking meetings to discuss whether they should spend $20k on a server (as well as the other technical details they are unqualifed to be discussing). Of course, anyone that actually knows anything about it is not welcome at these meetings. :)

jbellis 17y ago
The 32 CPU quote [originally from POF's blog and repeated w/o correction elsewhere] is incorrect; the HP server in question has 8 quad-core _CPUs_, for a total of 32 _cores_. So still a factor of 2.5 away from our hypothetical 80 core requirement, and not a refutation of GP's claim that x86 maxes out at 8 sockets.

ob 17y ago

That doesn't make any sense. You're assuming that they have 10 times the content, need 10 times the processing power, and that they derive no advantages to caching (from 48 GB RAM to 480 GB RAM). That is not how capacity planning works at all.

jbellis 17y ago
The scenario is 10x the traffic, not 10x the content. And given that Digg is an update-heavy site for all the voting (which affects how pages are rendered for your friends) assuming that caching is a magic wand here seems bogus.