3 ms·
Any web server that serves at scale can readily use 1024 cores... Nginx, servers built in Go, Erlang and many more. It would reduce hosting costs and complexity
by cft 11y ago
Any web server that serves at scale can readily use 1024 cores... Nginx, servers built in Go, Erlang and many more. It would reduce hosting costs and complexity substantially.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y agoLets say, for the sake of argument, that's true; what percentage of computers are "web servers that serve at scale". What's the cost of setting up production lines for 1024-core chips for just that market -- and how many chips are you going to be able to amortize that cost over. Even if it was possible, I think the costs would be exhorbitant, even if the marginal cost per chip wasn't.
- JoachimSchipper 11y agoIt's not as easy as you seem to think to e.g. (de-)multiplex a single TCP port to/from 1024 cores, and that's before you actually try to keep any application state in sync. Lots of stuff breaks at that level of concurrency.
- socceroos 11y agoFirst part makes sense, but the last part doesn't. Keeping application state in sync doesn't need to affect the throughput of events coming out of a multi-threaded application.
- kllrnohj 11y agoThose servers are also typically not CPU bottlenecked and while they would have 1024 threads (or even vastly more) they don't really benefit from 1024 cores.
- MCRed 11y agoFurther, we're in an industry of VPSes where cores are virtualized and divided up. a 128 core CPU could produce 128 single core VPSes with probably better performance. Of course this is consistent with your point, but your comment is negative, as is my parent comment. Substantive discussion is not appreciated on hacker news.