3 ms·
One interesting question is: if you started today, would you be able to afford boxes that cost 60k? Or would you do your software some other way that doesn't re
by manv1 4y ago
One interesting question is: if you started today, would you be able to afford boxes that cost 60k? Or would you do your software some other way that doesn't require 2TB of RAM?
Obviously when you started your stuff didn't need 2TB of RAM. If I read your history correctly I don't think you could even buy a box with 2TB of RAM back then. That's enterprise grade hardware, which today costs a fortune. Back in the day it would be a bigger fortune.
Instead, you probably started the way everyone else did, with maybe a 4GB or 8GB linux box at home then built things up from there and a bunch of curl scripts and a local instance.
So why the resource requirement? An in-ram database?
Mainly curious.
- Symbiote 4y agoIt says they have 850 servers, so 1700TB RAM (if they're all like this). If it's a big Hadoop cluster or similar, there's potentially huge performance gains by keeping data in-RAM during processing. They have many petabytes of data, so I doubt the type of processing they are doing today would have been possible when they first started.