4 ms·

We looked at providers such as Softlayer but while they guarantee the performance of the servers they typically can't guaranty network latency. Since we're doin

• pyrox420 10y ago
  Been a softlayer customer for 4 years now. Their network is pretty awesome. When hosted in the same datacenter it's sub-ms response time always. If there is an issue they get right on it. You can even ask them to host the stuff in the same rack to get even better response time.
  • aberoham 10y ago
    Same experience here, going on seven or eight years. They offer a great solution between cloud native and 100% owned/leased/caged bare metal.
  • sytse 10y ago
    Cool, I was not aware you can ask for same rack hosting.
  • krenoten 10y ago
    in the past they've spread servers into different rooms that had interconnects that challenged a team I was on to spend extra time writing compression code. is this better now?
  • sulam 10y ago
    We are also a SL customer -- 4-figures of hosts with them. We have had networking problems in the past (latency and loss far higher than I would expect to see in a well-provisioned DC) and talked to them about it. It ended up being contention with another customer, it got fixed, and our network performance has been great since. I would encourage you to look at what you can get without trying to do your own colo. You're not at the scale where you should be thinking about that.
    • sytse 10y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion. Any idea if they can offer 40 Gbps networking?
      • ihsw 10y ago
        Few will offer 40Gbps without charging a pretty penny, generally the jump will go from 10Gbps to 100Gbps but not until it becomes cost-effective (and not anytime soon). That said, SoftLayer does provide 20Gbps access within a private rack and 20Gbps access to the public network.
        • rphlx 10y ago
          Most large scale operations are (or soon will be) deploying 25GE and/or 50GE in place of 10Gbps Ethernet. 100GE to each node is unnecessary for most workloads & more importantly it's obscenely expensive and likely to remain so for at least 3 more years.
      • sulam 10y ago
        Architecturally I would honestly wonder why you need that. Git, with its heavy reliance on immutable objects, should replicate very well. I would expect to be NIC-bound, but I would also expect it to horizontally scale reasonably well. Storage is obviously a concern -- you will have to make sure you don't end up needing a full copy of your data on every node -- but there are well known solutions to this problem that account for hot keys/objects well enough for you to get really really far. Even reaching as far back as the BigTable paper there is valuable stuff to look at and you can obviously look at Cassandra to see how the OSS world has tackled that problem.
• tootie 10y ago
  None of that would convince me to lift a finger. Not unless you put dollar amounts on one vs the other. Version control isn't something I even care about performance.
  • toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Version control is the primary tool your developers are using at any org doing software development. It's performance is key to ensure devs aren't wasting their time waiting on version control. Performance along with reliability are the most important metrics for someone providing VCS as a service.
    • tootie 10y ago
      IDE and local dev environment are primary. I'm currently saddled with a proprietary SVN-based enterprisey monstrosity that costs me 10 minutes a day at the absolute worst. It sucks, but we can easily live with it.
  • a_t48 10y ago
    I do. We had horrible download\merge\resolve times at my place because of some poor choices (storing many copies of large binary files across all branches in perforce) and it made a huge improvement in development time when those issues were resolved. Granted, this was an extreme case, but VC performance is not irrelevant to the cost of software development.