3 ms·
I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially
by auspiv 1mo ago
I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially with smart caching in front of database. 100TB of flash is a good bit cheaper than 100TB of memory
- robotresearcher 1mo agoThis is smart, task-specific caching in front of database.
- ecnahc515 1mo agoBecause it would be slower and have different scaling requirements than the ones they want.
- fc417fc802 1mo agoI'm no expert but presumably all of throughout, latency, and churn. DNS is approximately a giant KV store where the typical record has a TTL of ~5 minutes.
- pocksuppet 1mo agoIt's not 100TB of data. It's probably 50 GB of data on each of 2000 servers. Because it's a cache. What is the point of a central cache if it's as slow to access as the original data?
- inigyou 1mo agoTFA gives numbers closer to 5GB.