3 ms·
I’ve personally deployed O(TBs) and O(10^4 TPS) Postgres clusters on Kubernetes with a CNPG-style operator based deployment. There are some subtleties to it but
by brand 4y ago
I’ve personally deployed O(TBs) and O(10^4 TPS) Postgres clusters on Kubernetes with a CNPG-style operator based deployment. There are some subtleties to it but it’s not exceeding complicated, and a good project like CNPG goes a long way to shaving off those sharp edges. As other commenters have suggested it’s good to really understand Kubernetes if you want to do it, though.
- radimm 4y agoThanks for the confirmation. As mentioned I'm not saying no to it. It is really that "really understand" part which holds me back for now - mainly the observability and dealing with edge cases in high-throughput environment.
- remram 4y ago> O(TBs) and O(10^4 TPS) What does this syntax mean? Surely you wouldn't use big-o notation with a constant in it, especially to convey the same meaning as the thing without the O?
- MikePlacid 4y agoMathematically speaking the statement you are objecting to is correct: c1 is O(c2) for any constants c1, c2. English-language-ly speaking the statement you are objecting to is also correct: both you and I managed to get it’s correct meaning. No?
- remram 4y agoNo, I am not sure about the meaning at all. Did they deploy databases that will tend to be a TB in size as something tends to infinity? Or multiple TBs? I don't know if they know about the constant factor since they don't know what the notation mean. Maybe they know what it means and are using it for a clever lie, a 1kB database is O(1TB). So is an empty database. GGP is trying to be cool, and doing so stripped all meaning from their statement.