4 ms·

That's just a static js file correct? When you get Facebook big, doesn't make financial sense to host static content on Amazon CloudFront, but it would avoid an

That's just a static js file correct? When you get Facebook big, doesn't make financial sense to host static content on Amazon CloudFront, but it would avoid any downtime. I wonder what their CloudFront monthly bill would be, just to serve this one js file?

davidu 15y ago
Why do you believe hosting it on CloudFront would avoid any downtime? Everything fails eventually.
- nodesocket 15y ago
  With Amazon's footprint and the number of datacenters around the world, it would be super unlikely that CloudFont would ever completely fail to serve content.
  - hucker 15y ago
    You think that Facebook's hosting is somehow inferior to Amazon CloudFront? You do realize that Facebook is much bigger and probably has more datacenters than Amazon right?
  - abrichr 15y ago
    As of 2009, Facebook had 60k servers worldwide, while Amazon had 40k dedicated to EC2 [1]. While Amazon has a lot more going on than just EC2, doesn't this indicate Facebook's and Amazon's footprints are at least on approximately the same order of magnitude in terms of number of servers? [1] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-got-the-most-web-servers/ http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-...
  - loverobots 15y ago
    From 2010 http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=409881258919 http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=409881258919
  - jmathai 15y ago
    Facebook, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc. all have plenty of redundancy built into everything they release. This is/was a fluke that could have affected any of them.
flyt 15y ago
Facebook does exactly this. connect.facebook.net is a CNAME record to 'connect.facebook.net.edgekey.net' which is, of course, Akamai. Akamai is essentially doing what you describe CloudFront handling, except at a much larger scale and with an existing wide deployment into Facebook's infrastructure (all of their photos/videos are served by Akamai CDN, for example).

davidu 15y ago

Why do you believe hosting it on CloudFront would avoid any downtime? Everything fails eventually.

nodesocket 15y ago
With Amazon's footprint and the number of datacenters around the world, it would be super unlikely that CloudFont would ever completely fail to serve content.
- hucker 15y ago
  You think that Facebook's hosting is somehow inferior to Amazon CloudFront? You do realize that Facebook is much bigger and probably has more datacenters than Amazon right?
- abrichr 15y ago
  As of 2009, Facebook had 60k servers worldwide, while Amazon had 40k dedicated to EC2 [1]. While Amazon has a lot more going on than just EC2, doesn't this indicate Facebook's and Amazon's footprints are at least on approximately the same order of magnitude in terms of number of servers? [1] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-got-the-most-web-servers/ http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-...
- loverobots 15y ago
  From 2010 http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=409881258919 http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=409881258919
- jmathai 15y ago
  Facebook, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc. all have plenty of redundancy built into everything they release. This is/was a fluke that could have affected any of them.

flyt 15y ago

Facebook does exactly this. connect.facebook.net is a CNAME record to 'connect.facebook.net.edgekey.net' which is, of course, Akamai. Akamai is essentially doing what you describe CloudFront handling, except at a much larger scale and with an existing wide deployment into Facebook's infrastructure (all of their photos/videos are served by Akamai CDN, for example).