4 ms·
So you had 500m reads on a relatively static data set + 5m writes on an unrelated log? Sounds like a fun problem, but I agree I doesn't sound like rocket scienc
by marcusf 14y ago
So you had 500m reads on a relatively static data set + 5m writes on an unrelated log? Sounds like a fun problem, but I agree I doesn't sound like rocket science. On the other hand, it also doesn't sound like Twitter, having 400m writes per day, and 400*x million reads on that very dynamic data set. Just seems that's a slightly harder problem.
- chewxy 14y agoAdserving is not really static. Cachebusters are named so for good reason. Nowadays ad server developers are clever enough to separate click tracking and impression tracking (the non-Enterprise version of OpenX still deserves a lot of ಠ_ಠ though). In an RTB environment, there is an additional constraint of having to serve up your ad (or decision) within 60ms (Google ADX sets a hard limit of 80ms), and the fastest best bid wins. I don't think that's a less hard problem compared to Twitter, especially at high volumes. You can't just say "scale sideward!". That said, the first link was totally misleading. I was actually quite shocked to see that Twitter only had 42M uniques per month, because a typical ad network does a lot more EDIT: ah.. 15B requests/day makes more sense. Wtf is with the wrong stats?
- achompas 14y agoAre you talking about 15B vs. the visits chart I linked? If so, the 15B number comes from API calls, which do not have to happen through the website (think of all the Twitter clients).