6 ms·
This article seems to bury the main point: we're currently getting about 30M hits a month on our API If you're getting a million API requests a day, you can p
by jphackworth 15y ago
This article seems to bury the main point:
we're currently getting about 30M hits a month on our API
If you're getting a million API requests a day, you can probably handle that load with a single machine. Indeed, it looks like they are using just one load balancer machine, one app server, and one db server. I'm not sure why the load balancer is even necessary. It's cool to hear this story, readers should just keep in mind that this is not really a "web scale" deployment.
- lwat 15y agoYea a million requests per day is almost nothing and could certainly be easily served by ANY RDBMS using ANY front-end technology from a single server.
- democracy 15y agoNot necessarily. If the hits are not distributed equally, you can get 500k hits in 2 hours (say lunch time in a big city in a small country).
- democracy 15y agoAnd why not? To me it sounds as a very good "web scale" start.
- robdor 15y agoIn the setup described here (it has changed a bit in the 6 months since this article was written) Varnish was being used primarily for caching and sending needed requests to the single application server. Calling it a load balancer at that point was a simple misnomer. Today we still have Varnish at the front of our stack for caching and also use it as a load balancer for a handful of application servers.
- embwbam 15y agoTraffic spikes heavily in the evenings, when people are watching TV. You're still right, but the point isn't necessarily that we're currently scaled out, but that I think we could with this setup. We've since added several app servers, and done some heavy load testing. I should probably do a follow-up with some new results.