4 ms·
Sure, from a numbers standpoint it's a lot. But from a technical perspective, serving mostly static data is not that interesting.
by brink 5y ago
Sure, 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.