3 ms·

Nice. The paper anticipated in good detail just what the heck I did with its "These stores enable services to be deployed using stateless application servers

Nice. The paper anticipated in good detail just what the heck I did with its "These stores enable services to be deployed using stateless application servers [16], which maintain only per-request state; all other state resides in persistent storage or in a RInK store. Stateless application servers bring operational simplicity: for example, any request may be handled by any application server, which makes it easy to add and remove application servers, to handle server failures, and to handle skewed workloads." Yup, I thought that was a good idea. After reading more of the paper, for my project, I still think it is a good idea. Your remarks add weight to that view!

bostik 7y ago
In all honesty, the paper describes a solution to a problem most companies won't need to care about. If processing latency for remote cache lookups is a performance bottleneck, it's likely you're already dealing with either enormous scale (Google/FB/Twitter/Uber/...) or some form of HFT (exchanges/hedge funds/banks/adtech/...) Amusingly enough, I have reason to believe those groups are over-represented in HN audience. They are also environments where computing capacity can make up a significant fraction of your overall engineering costs. In practically any other scenario the sub-millisecond delay is dominated and completely masked by your business logic taking tens to even hundreds of milliseconds per request. Remember - if you can return a response and a visual update to a client action within 100ms (including the network roundtrip), you're already operating in the lowest Nielsen band. Another funny thing about this paper is that it feels to me like people are rediscovering zero-copy network processing. Again, a topic dear to many HN hearts but unlikely to be a prime consideration for most companies.

3 ms·

Nice. The paper anticipated in good detail just what the heck I did with its "These stores enable services to be deployed using stateless application servers

by graycat 7y ago

bostik 7y ago
In all honesty, the paper describes a solution to a problem most companies won't need to care about. If processing latency for remote cache lookups is a performance bottleneck, it's likely you're already dealing with either enormous scale (Google/FB/Twitter/Uber/...) or some form of HFT (exchanges/hedge funds/banks/adtech/...) Amusingly enough, I have reason to believe those groups are over-represented in HN audience. They are also environments where computing capacity can make up a significant fraction of your overall engineering costs. In practically any other scenario the sub-millisecond delay is dominated and completely masked by your business logic taking tens to even hundreds of milliseconds per request. Remember - if you can return a response and a visual update to a client action within 100ms (including the network roundtrip), you're already operating in the lowest Nielsen band. Another funny thing about this paper is that it feels to me like people are rediscovering zero-copy network processing. Again, a topic dear to many HN hearts but unlikely to be a prime consideration for most companies.