3 ms·

I would use SQLite on a single-machine web server. However, I prefer to build my web stuff as stateless machine images that connect to a separate database insta

I would use SQLite on a single-machine web server. However, I prefer to build my web stuff as stateless machine images that connect to a separate database instance, because it lets me scale them independently. I should revisit this policy now that you can run a truly huge site off a 1U slot (I work for an alexa top10k, and our compute would fit comfortably in 1U); computers are so fast that vertical scaling is probably a viable option.

pdimitar 6y ago
That's exactly what I am leaning to in my current job. Looking at the load of our servers I can comfortably put all our software on my gaming machine (which is mid-range!) -- with the DB included -- and I bet no request ever will be above 100ms. IMO a lot of organizations should start re-investing in on-premise as well. Having a mid-range AMD EPYC server can serve most businesses out there without ever having more than 40% CPU usage. That, plus scaling down Kubernetes clusters. Most companies absolutely didn't need them in the first place.
- danielheath 6y ago
  I don’t know about on-prem for serving external workloads; getting a reliable, redundant, high-speed connection can cost far more than paying for colocation at a DC that’ll do at least as good a job. If you’re lucky they’ll even install fire suppression systems.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    Yep, can't argue with that. Still, for the cloud I started preferring going for Rust (where applicable!) and optimizing the hell out of the performance hot-spots. So far the results have only been crushing successes. Horizontal scaling has been employed only as a means of backup instances with a load balancer in front of them. And for blue/green deployments. Horizontal scaling hasn't been at all necessary otherwise. A $25 instance never got north of 15% CPU for one of the services I rewrote. I/O utilization never got beyond 60% and is usually 3-5%. But I can agree that the cloud has unquestionable benefits. It's just that I feel that their number is gradually dwindling.

pdimitar 6y ago

That's exactly what I am leaning to in my current job. Looking at the load of our servers I can comfortably put all our software on my gaming machine (which is mid-range!) -- with the DB included -- and I bet no request ever will be above 100ms. IMO a lot of organizations should start re-investing in on-premise as well. Having a mid-range AMD EPYC server can serve most businesses out there without ever having more than 40% CPU usage. That, plus scaling down Kubernetes clusters. Most companies absolutely didn't need them in the first place.

danielheath 6y ago
I don’t know about on-prem for serving external workloads; getting a reliable, redundant, high-speed connection can cost far more than paying for colocation at a DC that’ll do at least as good a job. If you’re lucky they’ll even install fire suppression systems.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Yep, can't argue with that. Still, for the cloud I started preferring going for Rust (where applicable!) and optimizing the hell out of the performance hot-spots. So far the results have only been crushing successes. Horizontal scaling has been employed only as a means of backup instances with a load balancer in front of them. And for blue/green deployments. Horizontal scaling hasn't been at all necessary otherwise. A $25 instance never got north of 15% CPU for one of the services I rewrote. I/O utilization never got beyond 60% and is usually 3-5%. But I can agree that the cloud has unquestionable benefits. It's just that I feel that their number is gradually dwindling.