3 ms·
May want to edit your post - I believe you meant 300K QPS, not 300 QPS :) But yeah, that’s very impressive to handle that much load without sharding! Though it
by yashap 6y ago
May want to edit your post - I believe you meant 300K QPS, not 300 QPS :) But yeah, that’s very impressive to handle that much load without sharding! Though it is a cluster of 12 instances, each with 96 CPUs and 614 GB RAM - those are some seriously beefy machines.
Slack are getting 300K WRITES per second, though. Which does mean you have really no choice but to shard - read replicas are nice for scaling reads, but do nothing for writes, and that’s A LOT of writes.
- ahachete 6y agoCannot edit any longer, but yes, that's a typo, it's 300K QPS. Right now the cluster is only 8 instances, and the write-only traffic on the master spikes to 70K QPS. So I agree with you --pretty beefy hardware, and it'd probably require sharding before reaching Slack's scale, but still quite impressive.