3 ms·
Why would the required server footprint have changed since previously? I buy it’s easier/cheaper to manage infrastructure, but scale requires infrastructure an
by wokwokwok 6y ago
Why would the required server footprint have changed since previously?
I buy it’s easier/cheaper to manage infrastructure, but scale requires infrastructure and I don’t understand why that would have changed.
- username90 6y agoMost forums can run on a single server, scale is cheap when you just exchange text messages.
- wtallis 6y agoBuzzFeed reported yesterday that Parler's AWS bill was over $300k per month: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
- username90 6y agoYeah, then this doesn't apply to them, they are funded by something. Just that you don't have to be to have a few million active users.
- wokwokwok 6y agoThat’s not what I asked. I asked why the required number of server is smaller than previously, which is what the OP said.
- username90 6y agoComputers are faster than 20 years ago, and amateurs stated and ran big forums 20 years ago.
- wokwokwok 6y agoHaha, you made my day with that reply. Sure, you’re right. Compared to the scale you had to worry about 20 years ago, I guess you need less severs to get the same thing now.
- username90 6y agoPeople had millions concurrent users on a server 8 years ago. Having a couple of million users total should be no problems at all unless you use the very heavy popular server frameworks. https://vimeo.com/44312354 https://vimeo.com/44312354
- acdha 6y agoThat’s not true at a large scale, and they have lots of media files in addition to text. One problem to especially consider is how timelines work: a forum generates one view for a much smaller number of users but any service with a follower model has to efficiently distribute updates. This isn’t incredibly hard, of course, but they’re not just spinning up an IRC server here.