3 ms·

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that the decision is "wrong". That paper demonstrated that a single server can outperform a small server farm on a toy pr

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that the decision is "wrong". That paper demonstrated that a single server can outperform a small server farm on a toy problem. Nobody, not even google, solves pagerank in production as a batch job. Real problems are often more complex.

tluyben2 7y ago
For many workloads, companies have tech leads and CTOs absolutely overarchitecting their stack. If you can run your entire system off of 4 loadbalanced $200/mo servers, why am I seeing hadoop/kafka/kubernetes/etc running on $10k+/mo premoney, so paid with investor money? Sure there are a lot of cases where this is fine, but I would say (from real life) that there are far more cases where this was a pretty poor choice. Usually proven to be even poorer when the tech lead leaves and no-one seemingly having a clue how it all works together, despite the whole docker/kubernetes/ci stories peddled to management. That is usually when I get asked to take a look. In my experience these problems are definitely not always toy problems while some of them can, easily, be ran on 1 server for the expected lifespan of the company because the company will never get that much users/clients/data even though immensely profitable. Not everyone (almost no one) is a FAANG and I find it offensive to use the company money (which can be investor money) to realise the wet dreams of the cto while the case for that architecture and the cost of it, makes 0 sense to the business and bottomline. Obviously in life, things are nuanced and differ case by case but nah, real world problems are, generally, not more complex. They are more complex in some (rare) cases, like the one you named. But most companies are not doing anything like that, but they do have their cto’s gearing up for that incredibly unlikely future.

3 ms·

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that the decision is "wrong". That paper demonstrated that a single server can outperform a small server farm on a toy pr

by asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

tluyben2 7y ago
For many workloads, companies have tech leads and CTOs absolutely overarchitecting their stack. If you can run your entire system off of 4 loadbalanced $200/mo servers, why am I seeing hadoop/kafka/kubernetes/etc running on $10k+/mo premoney, so paid with investor money? Sure there are a lot of cases where this is fine, but I would say (from real life) that there are far more cases where this was a pretty poor choice. Usually proven to be even poorer when the tech lead leaves and no-one seemingly having a clue how it all works together, despite the whole docker/kubernetes/ci stories peddled to management. That is usually when I get asked to take a look. In my experience these problems are definitely not always toy problems while some of them can, easily, be ran on 1 server for the expected lifespan of the company because the company will never get that much users/clients/data even though immensely profitable. Not everyone (almost no one) is a FAANG and I find it offensive to use the company money (which can be investor money) to realise the wet dreams of the cto while the case for that architecture and the cost of it, makes 0 sense to the business and bottomline. Obviously in life, things are nuanced and differ case by case but nah, real world problems are, generally, not more complex. They are more complex in some (rare) cases, like the one you named. But most companies are not doing anything like that, but they do have their cto’s gearing up for that incredibly unlikely future.