3 ms·
Yeah, when I was there I saw plenty of <1% optimizations saving REDACTED gobs of money, and people were rewarded for it. I don't think it's applicable to most t
by hansvm 4y ago
Yeah, when I was there I saw plenty of <1% optimizations saving REDACTED gobs of money, and people were rewarded for it. I don't think it's applicable to most teams though.
Imagine a foo/bar/widget app that only serves 20B people (obvious exaggeration to illustrate the point) and is only necessary up to a few hundred times per day. You can handle that sort of traffic on a laptop on my home router and still have enough hootzpah left to stream netflix. I mean, you are Google, and you need to do something better than that [0], but the hardware for your project is going to be negligible compared to other concerns unless you're doing FHE or video transcoding or something extraordinarily expensive.
Walk that backward to, how many teams have 20B users or are doing extraordinarily expensive things? I don't have any clue, but when you look at public examples of cheap things that never got much traction and probably had a suite of engineers [1], I'd imagine it's not everyone in any case. You're probably mostly looking at people with enough seniority to be able to choose to work on core code affecting most services.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI
[1] https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
- ilyt 4y agoGoogle seems to have problem of "you won't get promotion/raise if you don't work on something new" so they are not interested by services that just work and provide tidy little constant revenue
- surajrmal 4y agoTo some extent it's true on a macro scale, but it's a trope to say this is exclusively the case. I would say it is easier to paint the picture for promotion by working on new things but not by a large amount. The vast majority of folks at Google work on maintenance, as would be expected.