5 ms·
I don't understand why they are trying so hard to avoid sharding. It seems to me that this is a perfect example of an "embarassingly parallel" problem for whic
by lisper 6y ago
I don't understand why they are trying so hard to avoid sharding. It seems to me that this is a perfect example of an "embarassingly parallel" problem for which sharding would be borderline trivial. What am I missing?
- amelius 6y agoWell, their current solution is still a lot simpler, I suppose. With multiple servers there's a lot of extra administrative stuff you need to deal with.
- njharman 6y agoRack space ain’t free
- driverdan 6y agoThe cost of 4U vs 2U is trivial compared to the cost of this hardware.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- top_sigrid 6y agoIt still works like this and they have plenty of headroom with the new solution. Chances are good that when they need to upgrade this solution, technology will have advanced far enough as well. Guessing what their performance demands are (far, far more reads than writes) this seems to work fine for them, so why make it more complicated? They do talk about read-only replicas, so they have some distribution.
- rawoke083600 6y agoSharding is like amputating a limb ! It's works really well if the limb is infected with say a flesh-eating bacteria ! But you keep sharding as a last last resort ! It's hard going back
- JulianMorrison 6y agoIt's also an example of a "mustn't fail or you break the internet" problem and a "lots of people with nation state resources have a reason to fuck with us" problem. They are prioritising simplicity as a means to security, and that makes sense to me.
- Tepix 6y agoWell sharding would mean that any outages affect only a small percentage of their users.