6 ms·
Absolutely agree with the article. We do boring stacks at Stack Overflow (we are proudly a ASP.Net MVC/SQL Server shop) and our performance stats are pretty dam
by sklivvz1971 10y ago
Absolutely agree with the article. We do boring stacks at Stack Overflow (we are proudly a ASP.Net MVC/SQL Server shop) and our performance stats are pretty damn good.
Our average page is rendered in less than 20ms on cache misses [0] and we do over a billion page views per month with 9 web servers at 5% capacity. [1]
Sorry but it does get annoying when people suggest we "improve" our stack with $fancy_new_stack.
[0]: https://twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/790527231600787456 https://twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/790527231600787456
[1]: http://stackexchange.com/performance http://stackexchange.com/performance
- xeromal 10y agoAs a lowly .NET dev, thanks for leading the way to making us cool. I'm sure you guys have some fun whitepapers.
- japhyr 10y agoHow geographically distributed are stack overflow's servers?
- sklivvz1971 10y agoWe have two datacenters, one in New York, the other in Denver. Only one is active at any time. We also use Fastly for delivering static assets.
- pavs 10y agoThanks for dumping CloudFlare.
- cyberferret 10y agoIs CloudFlare no longer the shiny new CDN of the month? If not, could you elucidate a bit more as to why they are not?
- pavs 10y agohttp://www.slashgeek.net/cloudflare-making-internet-little-bit-faster-select-group-people/ http://www.slashgeek.net/cloudflare-making-internet-little-b...
- ASalazarMX 10y agoHave you considered non-propietary alternatives in your stack solely to reduce licencing? I understand technology choices are shaped by many factors, I'm just curious.
- sklivvz1971 10y agoThe only significant licensing cost we have is SQL Server, and yes, we have considered alternatives, like PostgreSQL. On one hand we would reduce costs by going to Postgres, on the other there would be a significant cost retuning all our SQL so to have an acceptable level of performance.
- paulryanrogers 10y agoDo you rely on DBAs to help with that tuning and maintenance? Or are developers handling that?
- nikon 10y agoMy product is built with C# .NET too. However I'm not bought into the Microsoft platform at all. Example: Nancy[0] for REST APIs, Postgres for persistence (with Dapper[1] of course), ElasticSearch and so on. Recently turned off my last Windows Server, I've converted all of the services into docker (mono) containers and making use of Rancher[2] for orchestration. I am also using Node.js as an API gateway which fits in quite well. [0] http://nancyfx.org http://nancyfx.org [1] https://github.com/StackExchange/dapper-dot-net https://github.com/StackExchange/dapper-dot-net [2] http://rancher.com http://rancher.com
- AJRF 10y agoI don't even know if some of these tools are made up or not anymore.
- cloudjacker 10y agoChef Nancy is caching on Route 53
- kazagistar 10y agoStill sounds made up.
- groovy2shoes 10y agoIt sounds even more made-up to me now...
- caseymarquis 10y agoI was under the impression IIS was leaps and bounds better than Linux based .net web servers. Thoughts on this having experienced the alternatives?
- thecopy 10y agoIt may be better from a technical standpoint but unnecessary and less good depending on circumstances.
- SadWebDeveloper 10y agoThank you! most of the kids these day love to build projects with those $fancy_new_stack technologies like if they were badges from the boy scouts.
- baddox 10y agoHow about your front end Web stack? I've read a lot about the Stack Exhchange backend, but not much about the front end. How quickly does development move on the front end? How do you test the front end? How subjectively maintainable does it seem to be? Any pressure or temptation to use one of the hip JS frameworks (if you're not already)?
- tim333 10y agoNot the guy but their front end looks pleasantly simple and framework less. They use jquery. You can do view source and read the thing pretty much unlike say Facebook. They apparently have written their own websocket system to update the stuff at the top http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168145/sockets-used-by-stack-overflow/168148#168148 http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168145/sockets-used-...
- vamsipk 10y agoThanks to you and your team. That's very impressive especially considering only 5% (max 15%) load on the CPU. Are the systems underutilized in this case, if so is there a reason?