4 ms·
classic hacker news comment. 400M RPS belittled to commonplace service development. you truly underestimate how high of throughput this is
by foolfoolz 5y ago
classic hacker news comment. 400M RPS belittled to commonplace service development. you truly underestimate how high of throughput this is
- brink 5y agoSure, from a numbers standpoint it's a lot. But from a technical perspective, serving mostly static data is not that interesting.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago> But from a technical perspective, serving mostly static data is not that interesting. The difference between mostly static and completely static is where the interesting bit is. The two categories beget completely different solutions, especially when serving stale data is not acceptable, as in the case we're looking at.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- brink 5y agoWell I guess it is to some people..
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoYou aren't aware of what is involved in a system like this. You believe it's simple, and so you believe it would be technically uninteresting. But you are mistaken in that belief. Go read the Zanzibar paper[1] -- Google's analogue to the AWS system we're discussing -- then come back and tell me with a straight face that that is technically uninteresting. If so, I'll at least learn that we have different views on what technical interesting-ness is. [1]: https://research.google/pubs/pub48190/ https://research.google/pubs/pub48190/
- new_realist 5y agoGoogle’s problems are interesting. Amazon’s are mostly brute force obviousness.
- Spivak 5y agoJust getting to 400m RPS (from scratch, no using AWS or a CDN to help) for just a toy app / static content is a huge accomplishment.
- amelius 5y ago> you truly underestimate how high of throughput this is I suppose this comment falls in the same category as "never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of tapes". Yes, the numbers are huge. Whether it is a technical achievement is another question entirely.