4 ms·

After that single node crashes, the app you're running on that one server will run a little more slowly.. How big should the one server that serves the whole o

After that single node crashes, the app you're running on that one server will run a little more slowly.. How big should the one server that serves the whole of netflix be..?

ant6n 6y ago
"You can handle millions of simultaneous clients without blinking. Who even has that many total customers right now?" Apparently netflix has that many customers. Then again, if you split Netflix into regions and separate all the account logic from the streaming, the recommendations engine and the movie-content, you could perhaps run the account logic for one region in one server.
- dmingod666 6y ago
  Besides just giving you a warm fuzzy feeling of running only one server. What is the point of running one server? Do you also object to them running in the cloud in VMs and not on physical hardware that they own? Sounds like an old man's "kids these days" rant..
  - betaby 6y ago
    Netflix in fact 'run on servers' https://papers.freebsd.org/2019/fosdem/looney-netflix_and_freebsd/ https://papers.freebsd.org/2019/fosdem/looney-netflix_and_fr...
    - dmingod666 6y ago
      Ofcourse, everything runs on servers. Question is, who owns and maintains the hardware. The link you shared just says they manage their OS layer, ofcourse they do. Everyone running on AWS VMs is responsible for their own OS layer. Wether they want precise control over their OS doesn't change their preference for who owns and manages the hardware..
      - betaby 6y ago
        Well, in case of Netflix - Netflix run the servers - from hardware to the custom FreeBSD build as the explained in multiple talks.
moksly 6y ago
Stackoverflow has always run on a couple of IIS instances. If you’re not bigger than them don’t worry. You can pretend to be Netflix or Google, and build your tech-stack like they do. Or you can stop wasting your resources setting up a tech stack that you’re never going to get a return of investment on.
- dmingod666 6y ago
  Why a few though? Couldn't they do with just 1..? that would make people on HN more happier it seems. Stack Overflow is not a unit of measurement that anyone would be able to take seriously or find useful? How many stack overflows is one asana? Or how many stack overflows is one trello? Horizontal scaling, docker K8s have their own benefits that are many and obviously to the industry. you don't need to be google to deploy and use them. If you deploy one server for each app and each team vs deploying a common K8s cluster where is the higher investment? You claim more ROI with more physical hardware and more servers?
  - OldHand2018 6y ago
    > Or how many stack overflows is one trello? I shall not express any opinion on this topic other than to say that Trello is not a good example to bring up. The entire customer base of Trello is not using a single shared board and thus they could scale in any direction they wanted to maximize ROI.
  - moksly 6y ago
    > Why a few though? Because it’s less dangerous and cheaper? > Horizontal scaling, docker K8s have their own benefits that are many and obviously to the industry. Which is why SO runs on more than one IIS... You don’t need a tech-stack, that is apparently even too complex for google considering the article, to scale horizontally. > If you deploy one server for each app and each team vs deploying a common K8s cluster where is the higher investment? The investment comes from the complexity. We’ve seen numerous proofs of concepts in my country, and in my sector of work, where different IT departments spent one or two 2-5 full years worth of man hours trying to adopt a perfect devops tech-stach. Maybe that’s because they were incompetent, you’re free and possible right to claim so, but that’s still professional teams expending real world resources and failing. From a management perspective, and this is where I’m coming from much more than a technical perspective mind you, the most expensive resource you have is your employees. If software is so complex that I need one or two full time operators to run it, well, let’s just say I could run more than a million azure web apps, and have our regular Microsoft certified operators handle it. > You claim more ROI with more physical hardware and more servers? I haven’t owned my own iron since 2010. All our on-prem servers, and we still do have those, are virtual and running on rented iron. I think we may be speaking past each other though. My point is financial and yours appear to be mostly technical. If you can set up and run your K8s without expending resources, then good for you, a lot of companies and organisations have proven to be unable to do that though, and in those cases, I think they would’ve been better off not doing it, until they needed to.

After that single node crashes, the app you're running on that one server will run a little more slowly.. How big should the one server that serves the whole of netflix be..?

ant6n 6y ago

"You can handle millions of simultaneous clients without blinking. Who even has that many total customers right now?" Apparently netflix has that many customers. Then again, if you split Netflix into regions and separate all the account logic from the streaming, the recommendations engine and the movie-content, you could perhaps run the account logic for one region in one server.

dmingod666 6y ago
Besides just giving you a warm fuzzy feeling of running only one server. What is the point of running one server? Do you also object to them running in the cloud in VMs and not on physical hardware that they own? Sounds like an old man's "kids these days" rant..
- betaby 6y ago
  Netflix in fact 'run on servers' https://papers.freebsd.org/2019/fosdem/looney-netflix_and_freebsd/ https://papers.freebsd.org/2019/fosdem/looney-netflix_and_fr...
  - dmingod666 6y ago
    Ofcourse, everything runs on servers. Question is, who owns and maintains the hardware. The link you shared just says they manage their OS layer, ofcourse they do. Everyone running on AWS VMs is responsible for their own OS layer. Wether they want precise control over their OS doesn't change their preference for who owns and manages the hardware..
    - betaby 6y ago
      Well, in case of Netflix - Netflix run the servers - from hardware to the custom FreeBSD build as the explained in multiple talks.

moksly 6y ago

Stackoverflow has always run on a couple of IIS instances. If you’re not bigger than them don’t worry. You can pretend to be Netflix or Google, and build your tech-stack like they do. Or you can stop wasting your resources setting up a tech stack that you’re never going to get a return of investment on.

dmingod666 6y ago
Why a few though? Couldn't they do with just 1..? that would make people on HN more happier it seems. Stack Overflow is not a unit of measurement that anyone would be able to take seriously or find useful? How many stack overflows is one asana? Or how many stack overflows is one trello? Horizontal scaling, docker K8s have their own benefits that are many and obviously to the industry. you don't need to be google to deploy and use them. If you deploy one server for each app and each team vs deploying a common K8s cluster where is the higher investment? You claim more ROI with more physical hardware and more servers?
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  > Or how many stack overflows is one trello? I shall not express any opinion on this topic other than to say that Trello is not a good example to bring up. The entire customer base of Trello is not using a single shared board and thus they could scale in any direction they wanted to maximize ROI.
- moksly 6y ago
  > Why a few though? Because it’s less dangerous and cheaper? > Horizontal scaling, docker K8s have their own benefits that are many and obviously to the industry. Which is why SO runs on more than one IIS... You don’t need a tech-stack, that is apparently even too complex for google considering the article, to scale horizontally. > If you deploy one server for each app and each team vs deploying a common K8s cluster where is the higher investment? The investment comes from the complexity. We’ve seen numerous proofs of concepts in my country, and in my sector of work, where different IT departments spent one or two 2-5 full years worth of man hours trying to adopt a perfect devops tech-stach. Maybe that’s because they were incompetent, you’re free and possible right to claim so, but that’s still professional teams expending real world resources and failing. From a management perspective, and this is where I’m coming from much more than a technical perspective mind you, the most expensive resource you have is your employees. If software is so complex that I need one or two full time operators to run it, well, let’s just say I could run more than a million azure web apps, and have our regular Microsoft certified operators handle it. > You claim more ROI with more physical hardware and more servers? I haven’t owned my own iron since 2010. All our on-prem servers, and we still do have those, are virtual and running on rented iron. I think we may be speaking past each other though. My point is financial and yours appear to be mostly technical. If you can set up and run your K8s without expending resources, then good for you, a lot of companies and organisations have proven to be unable to do that though, and in those cases, I think they would’ve been better off not doing it, until they needed to.