4 ms·
A single server which can probably serve your complete customer base could / might cost less than 5k
by jbverschoor 4y ago
A single server which can probably serve your complete customer base could / might cost less than 5k
- nathancahill 4y agoAs I recall, StackOverflow runs (ran?) on 6 large but not massive servers.
- ctvo 4y agoThey also used the dotnet stack (Windows Server, IIS, MSSQL, dotnet), and optimized the heck out of everything. They're not the typical use case. (I'm not saying dotnet allowed them to get by on N low digit servers. I'm saying those folks are atypical)
- l33t233372 4y agoWhat are you saying by pointing out that they use the dotnet stack? It’s interesting trivia to be sure, but I’m wondering if you were making a point with that
- drchickensalad 4y agoHave you seen the performance of standard ruby and python web frameworks in comparison? It's a massive difference
- bcrosby95 4y agoWe did very similar with a Java stack without even trying really. Competitors using things like Ruby and went all in on distributed messes had hundreds of servers but we had about 15. It does require you to be aware of performance, but I wouldn't call it difficult or particularly time consuming.
- ilyt 4y agoSo assuming your code is 5 times worse that still fits within one rack > I'm saying those folks are atypical) Calling "write not shit code in language that's not dog slow" "atypical" is sad state of our industry. Also in many cases you can get a lot out of caching if you do it smartly.
- birdyrooster 4y agoAdd in redundancy and that number quadruples bc you need to manage shared state and 2-3x the hardware
- Spivak 4y agoI am gonna go out on a limb and say that given that they're talking about replication they mean server rack which definitely is not $100k/mo but can pretty easily be $100k up-front.
- jbverschoor 4y agoSure, but 100k buys you a lot of iron and silicon.