2 ms·
> A much more likely scenario is each of your 10100 things has at least 2-4GB of memory per CPU core This is nearly two orders of magnitude off (250-500MB usin
by morelisp 5y ago
> A much more likely scenario is each of your 10100 things has at least 2-4GB of memory per CPU core
This is nearly two orders of magnitude off (250-500MB using 4-16 CPU cores) for some of our most connection-intense services. And as you said 8KiB is extremely low, in practice more like 2-10x that once all buffering is taken into account. >5% of my memory spent on connection handling that (by the original assumption) I don't need, yes, that worries me.
- jeffbee 5y agoThat just doesn't make any sense. You can't even build a computer with 16 cores and 500MB of memory, so why would you have that ratio in production? This whole thread has been completely surreal.
- morelisp 5y ago> You can't even build a computer with 16 cores and 500MB of memory, so why would you have that ratio in production? Because the service has no substantial local state so doesn't need any more than that? Should we invent unnecessary local state just so we can use more memory? That sounds considerably more surreal to me. Or maybe instead we should use all the memory we saved to keep our 200-300GB working set for a different service in RAM colocated, which is what we do...