4 ms·

Seems like poor analysis on their part then. If they're leaving 3.5x perf on the floor, they're not spending their money very well.

• loeg 4y ago
  A lot of businesses reasonably use Python and Ruby, for example.
  • snovv_crash 4y ago
    If you can run 1 server instead of 3 though... that means no ansible, no kubernetes, no wild deployment strategies, 1/3 the likelihood of hardware failure, etc
    • maccard 4y ago
      This isn't true, at all. We are not "high availability" by any means but running on one server has significant risks, _especially_ if you don't use some form of automated provisioning. A destructive app logic bug is far more likely than a hardware failure, and in both cases the impact on your service is significant if you have one instance, but likely manageable if you have more than one.
    • heurisko 4y ago
      Why wouldn't you use ansible to manage one server? It's a great tool with a low learning curve that just requires SSH.
• magicalhippo 4y ago
  Leaving 3.5x perf of what on the floor though? We're working on applications that's either waiting for the disk, waiting for the db, waiting for some http server or waiting for the user. None of our customers will notice the difference if my button click event handler takes 50ms instead of 10ms, or if the integration service that processes a few dozen files per day spends 5 seconds instead of 1 second. I'll easily trade 5x performance in 99% of my code if it makes me produce 5x more features, because most of the time my code runs in just a few milliseconds at a time anyway. Of course, I'm weary of big-Oh, that one will bit ya. But a mere 3.5x is almost never worth chasing for us.
  • conradev 4y ago
    Netflix is not doing this work to improve user latency, they are doing this work to minimize cost: > At Netflix, we periodically reevaluate our workloads to optimize utilization of available capacity. The idea being that if you pay for fewer servers you spend less money
    • abrookewood 4y ago
      And at their scale, this makes sense. No one is going to do this work if if means they run 2 servers instead of 6.
  • anonymoushn 4y ago
    > We're working on applications that's either waiting for the disk, waiting for the db, waiting for some http server or waiting for the user. If you try to be good at waiting on many things, you can use one machine instead of a hundred > None of our customers will notice the difference if my button click event handler takes 50ms instead of 10ms They absolutely will, what
    • magicalhippo 4y ago
      > If you try to be good at waiting on many things, you can use one machine instead of a hundred We can't run on one, because customers run our application on-prem. > They absolutely will, what How can you be so sure?
      • anonymoushn 4y ago
        Have you tested this? 40ms of additional interaction delay is extremely noticeable.
        • magicalhippo 4y ago
          You're missing the point. Sure, 10ms vs 40ms is measurable, and for the keen-eyed noticeable. But if you're only pressing the button once every 5 minutes, it doesn't matter. Similarly, if the button triggers an asynchronous call to a third-party webservice that takes seconds to respond, it doesn't matter. And so on. Of course, for the things where users are affected by low latency, we try to take care. But overall that's a very, very small portion out of our full functionality.