3 ms·
1000TPS isn't that much? Engineer for low latency and with a 10ms budget that'd be 10 cores if it were CPU-bound, less in practice since usually part of the tim
by the8472 1y ago
1000TPS isn't that much? Engineer for low latency and with a 10ms budget that'd be 10 cores if it were CPU-bound, less in practice since usually part of the time is spent in IO wait.
- drob518 1y agoAnd with CPUs now being shipped with 100+ cores, you can brute force that sucker a long way.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago> 1000TPS isn't that much? Why does that matter? My argument is: Engineer for what you know, leave the rest for when you know better, which isn't before you have lots of users.
- the8472 1y agoWhat I'm saying is that "building for 1000TPS" is not what gets you an overengineered 5-layer microservice architecture. If you build for a good user experience (which includes low latency) you get that not-that-big scale without sharding.
- hedora 1y agoI doubt much time would be in I/O wait if this was really a scale up architecture. Ignoring the 100's of GB of page cache, it should be sitting on NVMe drives, where a write is just a PCIe round trip, and a read is < 1ms.