3 ms·
> So to answer your question, there was never some crazy-awesome implementation of a distributed global queue that we got rid of. So it was an oversimplified s
by marshray 14y ago
> So to answer your question, there was never some crazy-awesome implementation of a distributed global queue that we got rid of.
So it was an oversimplified system that worked great but wasn't scalable and was at some point going to completely fall over under increasing load.
IMExp, this is not a wrong thing to build initially and it's not wrong to replace it either. But the replacement is going to have a hard time being as simple or predictable. :-)
- twic 14y agoNot a wrong thing to build initially, but perhaps a wrong thing to advertise a feature based on, unless you have a plan for how to continue to deliver that feature as you scale up.
- marshray 14y agoEverybody who scales rapidly has some growing pains, so I'm sympathetic. But I agree that by advertising that as a feature they're specifically asking customers to outsource this hard problem to them.