3 ms·
I think the point of contention here is probably what a typical system looks like. I haven't personally had the pleasure of working on a system that's anywhere
by mumblemumble 5y ago
I think the point of contention here is probably what a typical system looks like. I haven't personally had the pleasure of working on a system that's anywhere close to having 100 frontends and 10,000 backends, and I don't have many friends who have, either, so I assume that's an atypical use case. Perhaps I'm wrong there.
- jeffbee 5y agoThen why would you have a million established connections? That's my whole point here: don't worry about the connection count until you have a concrete need to worry about it.
- mumblemumble 5y agoI think that's actually my whole point here. If I'm running a system on anywhere near the scale I'm used to operating, you damn well better believe that I'm going to worry about "20 billion connections." The concrete reason, which I can give a priori without even waiting for it to happen first, is that the best case scenario for what's going on is probably that the servers are being hugged to death. That and we've violated the laws of physics. Because even by the numbers that you agreed are grossly optimistic (which was deliberate), we're looking at that consuming an order of magnitude or two more RAM than we have across all our servers. So that would admittedly be cool. But still.