4 ms·
They 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 sayi
by ctvo 3y ago
They 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 3y 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 3y agoHave you seen the performance of standard ruby and python web frameworks in comparison? It's a massive difference
- bcrosby95 3y 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 3y 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.