3 ms·
What's wrong with a spinning hard disk? The files are super easy to read, we're talking milliseconds, and once done it stays in the page cache in RAM... that co
by herpderperator 5y ago
What's wrong with a spinning hard disk? The files are super easy to read, we're talking milliseconds, and once done it stays in the page cache in RAM... that completely negates any SSD advantage. SSDs have little to no benefit in serving static files.
If you're really strict on this it's trivial to preload these files in RAM after compiling your assets so you don't have to wait for a request.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> What's wrong with a spinning hard disk? The files are super easy to read, we're talking milliseconds, and once done it stays in the page cache in RAM They're running a dynamic website with an API and other dynamic functions. It's not a static fileserver. It might make more sense if you visit the website in question: https://polyhaven.com/ https://polyhaven.com/
- prirun 5y agoHigher up someone calculated that they have 2TB of data, considering their $11/mo Backblaze bill. I calculate $11/$0.004/GB and get 2750 GB. If you have 2.75TB of files to serve and have a bunch of simultaneous requests for different files: - everything doesn't fit into the RAM page cache, unless you have 3TB of RAM in your server - for files that aren't cached, you have to read from the drive - when you have a bunch of different requests for different files, you're going to have a lot of disk seeks. Seeks are expensive on rotating media. Serving a large collection of static files at scale can be quite challenging. At my previous e-commerce company, back in the early 2000's, we did our own image serving with RAID1 multiply-mirrored drives (before SSDs!) so we could multiply the seek capacity by the number of drives.