3 ms·

>> You can do a lot with 244 GB RAM machines Is this a typo of "244 GB" instead of "24 GB"? Nearly any company that has a single machine provisioned with 244 G

>> You can do a lot with 244 GB RAM machines Is this a typo of "244 GB" instead of "24 GB"? Nearly any company that has a single machine provisioned with 244 GB of RAM is doing something severely wrong, likely putting the company's ability to grow at risk. Such a machine screams of trying to vertically scale a poorly performing legacy product instead of figuring out to horizontally scale out with 16-64 GB servers. That much memory on a single server is a huge red flag for 95-99%+ of companies. It takes a very specialized system (ie: you probably don't fit the mold, no matter what your excuses are) to require such a server.

bpicolo 9y ago
Pretty sure it's not a typo. Amazon i3.16xlarge is 488 GB of Ram, 64 vCPUs, and a 20 Gigabit connection. Postgres/Mysql can absolutely scream perf-wise on that.
- timewarrior 9y ago
  +1 - it wasn't a typo. DB machines benefit a lot from huge RAM.
- fulafel 9y ago
  AWS also has 2 TB instances: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/ Outside AWS, you can put 3-6 TB in a normal-ish server from Dell or HP, or 64 TB in a big iron box from Fujitsu or IBM.
ne01 9y ago
I know Basecamp uses a server with 2TB of RAM for their single MySQL server. FYI CTO of Basecamp is the creator of Ruby on Rails -- smart people. Checkout stack overflow stack too. Their system is faster too.
- developer2 9y ago
  That is actually insane. The day their MySQL cluster experiences a severe downtime incident, it is likely going to take an enormous amount of time to recover. That is my intuition. If you know of a video or blog post (conference, talk, article, etc.) where someone explains the benefits of a 2 TB MySQL server and how it is not a crazy bad idea, I would love to see it. Because my 15 years of professional experience screams "NO WAY IN HELL" at that one.
fulafel 9y ago
Keeping all data cached in RAM is something that eats a bunch of memory, but is not usually wrong.

bpicolo 9y ago

Pretty sure it's not a typo. Amazon i3.16xlarge is 488 GB of Ram, 64 vCPUs, and a 20 Gigabit connection. Postgres/Mysql can absolutely scream perf-wise on that.

timewarrior 9y ago
+1 - it wasn't a typo. DB machines benefit a lot from huge RAM.
fulafel 9y ago
AWS also has 2 TB instances: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/ Outside AWS, you can put 3-6 TB in a normal-ish server from Dell or HP, or 64 TB in a big iron box from Fujitsu or IBM.

ne01 9y ago

I know Basecamp uses a server with 2TB of RAM for their single MySQL server. FYI CTO of Basecamp is the creator of Ruby on Rails -- smart people. Checkout stack overflow stack too. Their system is faster too.

developer2 9y ago
That is actually insane. The day their MySQL cluster experiences a severe downtime incident, it is likely going to take an enormous amount of time to recover. That is my intuition. If you know of a video or blog post (conference, talk, article, etc.) where someone explains the benefits of a 2 TB MySQL server and how it is not a crazy bad idea, I would love to see it. Because my 15 years of professional experience screams "NO WAY IN HELL" at that one.

fulafel 9y ago

Keeping all data cached in RAM is something that eats a bunch of memory, but is not usually wrong.