3 ms·

Question: better threading performance seems to be the main motivation for this project. Could they not just use multiprocessing instead of threading for the cp

Question: better threading performance seems to be the main motivation for this project. Could they not just use multiprocessing instead of threading for the cpu-heavy parts of the YouTube codebase, and threading or asyncio for the io-bound parts of it? Edit: for example, the fib benchmark they cite is cpu-bound. If the python code used multiprocessing, the performance would scale almost linearly with the number of processes.

webmaven 10y ago
> Could they not just use multiprocessing instead of threading for the cpu-heavy parts of the YouTube codebase, and threading or asyncio for the io-bound parts of it? Probably, but consider how much bare iron Google has lying around, much of it likely with few cores-per-CPU. Using it efficiently and not accelerating it's obsolescence is probably a priority for them. BTW, does anyone have data that would suggest how long it does take an org at the scale of an Amazon, Google, or Facebook to entirely replace their HW? I assume that it isn't only through attrition, and that Google for example currently has no servers running that date back to Y2k, but I have no idea what the "half-life" of a server is at their scale.