4 ms·

I think this post is kind of missing business sense. It doesn't matter if TempleOS on i386 could handle LLMs 10x faster than competition if you couldn't assembl

I think this post is kind of missing business sense. It doesn't matter if TempleOS on i386 could handle LLMs 10x faster than competition if you couldn't assemble a 24/7 Ops team to support it. Businesses need something predictable and repeatable(great if scalable too) that can be offered to customers at higher value than cost, and to make it repeatable businesses demand infinitely distributable architechtures. Otherwise you end up with just various forms of losses, missed opportunities, trust issues, foxhole problems, technical debts and such. The idea of a single mainframe in a shed maintained by a UNIX wizard generating boatloads of cash would be awesome. The last part has proven difficult.

Sammi 3y ago
But the article is pretty clear with a common use case example? And maintaining a linux server is common knowledge. People have done it for decades. No wizardry needed.
FdbkHb 3y ago
Stackoverflow's architecture, while more than just one server, is very much in the spirit of this and I'd say they're a highly successful high traffic website. https://stackexchange.com/performance https://stackexchange.com/performance 9 IIS web servers, 1 SQL server (plus one hot standby SQL) with 1.5 TB of ram and 2 redis serving 1.3 billion views a month. And if anything they've been scaling down their architeture over the years as hardware gets better and their software improves: in 2016 they ran 11 web servers for example. Notice how little CPU usage they've got, even in peak usage, it's really about I/O ie lots of RAM and fast storage. So it depends on the use cases, but I do not think "I need the cloud" is the automatic answer to "I am making something for the web". In fact the vast majority of people will never even get close to the level of traffic SO has. Of course, even with low traffic, some type of software would highly benefit from a distributed cloud architecture. Can't really make a search engine that indexes the whole internet on so little. But are you making the next google? Their stack is certainly a lot, lot, lot cheaper to run in the long term than going with Amazon's blood sucking costs.

Sammi 3y ago

But the article is pretty clear with a common use case example? And maintaining a linux server is common knowledge. People have done it for decades. No wizardry needed.

FdbkHb 3y ago

Stackoverflow's architecture, while more than just one server, is very much in the spirit of this and I'd say they're a highly successful high traffic website. https://stackexchange.com/performance https://stackexchange.com/performance 9 IIS web servers, 1 SQL server (plus one hot standby SQL) with 1.5 TB of ram and 2 redis serving 1.3 billion views a month. And if anything they've been scaling down their architeture over the years as hardware gets better and their software improves: in 2016 they ran 11 web servers for example. Notice how little CPU usage they've got, even in peak usage, it's really about I/O ie lots of RAM and fast storage. So it depends on the use cases, but I do not think "I need the cloud" is the automatic answer to "I am making something for the web". In fact the vast majority of people will never even get close to the level of traffic SO has. Of course, even with low traffic, some type of software would highly benefit from a distributed cloud architecture. Can't really make a search engine that indexes the whole internet on so little. But are you making the next google? Their stack is certainly a lot, lot, lot cheaper to run in the long term than going with Amazon's blood sucking costs.