11 ms·
What i never see is how much servers/hardware/resources they are spending. It's _always_ like "we process a quadrillion messages per second" but it never mentio
by buster 12y ago
What i never see is how much servers/hardware/resources they are spending.
It's _always_ like "we process a quadrillion messages per second" but it never mentions that you'll need a quadrillion expensive servers to do so.
Same for many many database benchmarks, sadly...
- frostmatthew 12y agoIt's a couple years old but What it takes to run Stack Overflow[1] lists the number of DB servers, Web servers, etc [1] http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/11/22/what-it-takes-to-run-stack-overflow/ http://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/11/22/what-it-takes-to-run-s...
- jackweirdy 12y agoThis update is more recent: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/7/21/stackoverflow-update-560m-pageviews-a-month-25-servers-and-i.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/7/21/stackoverflow-upda...
- jared314 12y agoStackExchange is pretty open with their hardware metrics. The StackExchange performance site: https://stackexchange.com/performance https://stackexchange.com/performance
- Someone1234 12y ago> RAM: 48GB Per server or in total..? Either one is believable.
- zuck9 12y agoI don't think a single server can do its task in just 5 GiB (48 GiB/9)
- Kurtz79 12y agoIt must be per server, adding RAM is really the quickest and cheapest way to improve performance.
- Moter8 12y agoSee the tagline "statistics by server" Image: http://i.imgur.com/q1oDamy.png http://i.imgur.com/q1oDamy.png