4 ms·
<insert "when you're a hammer..." joke here> Not to be a jerk, but, running Facebook over AWS is not a CDN problem. That's crazy talk. There are far more Faceb
by origami777 9y ago
<insert "when you're a hammer..." joke here>
Not to be a jerk, but, running Facebook over AWS is not a CDN problem. That's crazy talk. There are far more Facebook requirements that AWS can meet that Akamai cannot. You have to look beyond their content delivery reqs.
Also, they could absolutely have 800k servers. I don't think comparing their size to Akamai is fair. The requirements of each company are drastically different.
Do I think the 830k is accurate? No, but only because these estimates are usually wrong (unless informed by an inside source).
- jaypaulynice 9y agoAkamai handles 15-30% of all web traffic on any given day with 200k-300k servers...does Facebook have that kind of load in a day? The problem is mostly a CDN one, crunching data and writing to the servers are second to actually serving users fast. For example, I don't necessarily need to see the latest posts, comments, etc. so you can queue up the writing and sync data later, but when I hit fb.com, I have to see stuff...
- ADefenestrator 9y agoI think working for Akamai you're looking at things in a rather CDN-centric sort of way, but shuffling bits around is a relatively small percentage of what Facebook does. Actually doing things with the data beyond serving it up takes a lot more servers. The "CDN-equivalent" servers in PoPs etc for FB are a a pretty small percentage of the total, and the bulk are things like web/cache/search/DB servers.