doh

52 ms·

481.
by doh 10y ago
I don't think it does. > Require users who choose to modify Citus to fit their needs, to release the patches to the software development community. Do you consider a script that uses your API a patch? In my opinion there is no modif
482.
by doh 10y ago
Based on this [0] the code doesn't have to be shared. Also would not like to publish code that goes against commercial interest of the Citus team, which I like quite a lot. [0] http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com&#x
483.
by doh 10y ago
I did not modify anything Citus related, just wrote scripts that are using their API. Also the code is messy (as everything built for an in-house use).
484.
by doh 10y ago
We're still stubbornly using the OSS version. I wrote my own scripts that help with the rebalancing but it's a pain to say the least.
485.
by doh 10y ago
We're using Citus for almost a year, 8 months in production. Currently running 22 workers [32 core, 3TB space, 120GB RAM] containing almost a trillion (yep) rows in one single table. Citus has a lot of quirks and one could write a book
486.
by doh 10y ago
If you're looking at it this way, that every single stream is managed, then yes, you're right. I rather think that we develop only the water sources that make the most sense and leave the rest be. This way we could talk about the
487.
by doh 10y ago
It's actually not false. If you read the article you posted, you will see that half of the water is used for environmental uses. That means is not used by humans, but "let go". So if you sum the rest, agriculture does use 80%
488.
by doh 10y ago
I think they would make it public if they believe they are scale ready. From my experience working there years ago, one of the first requirements was to be able to scale to any kind of requirements.
489.
by doh 10y ago
As I was told recently, IPV6 is not comming anytime soon to GCP (not in next 6 months).
490.
by doh 10y ago
Well, there is not that many of them. Only around 2% uploaded videos to YouTube are private (roughly 14M in the last year). Another 8% are public videos with under 1k views (50M in the last year). I do believe that YouTube is not hyper exci
491.
by doh 10y ago
I do agree, although I think the 4k will take longer than it may seem. For instance 99% videos uploaded to YouTube are smaller than 4k. And the trend is not improving much (or at all). By comparing video uploads to YouTube from last two yea
492.
by doh 10y ago
That's a great point I heard a lot recently
493.
by doh 10y ago
Appreciate the recommendation. I personally don't care much to be around other startups (although in SF we sit around the corner from Stripe, Soundcloud, ...). I want decent space with good food options around and for my people to affo
494.
by doh 10y ago
Will do. If it would be up to me, we would move down to El Segundo or Redondo Beach. But my colleagues are not that excited about those areas. Will see if I can sell them on downtown
495.
by doh 10y ago
We're actually still based in San Francisco and working on the relocation right now. We're deciding between Culver City and Downtown.
496.
by doh 10y ago
Pex | Los Angeles, CA | Full time | Onsite | VISA sponsorship/transfer OK At Pex we built a search engine with focus on multimedia (video/music). We work with a variety of customers including movie/music studios, content crea
497.
by doh 10y ago
Many great stories here already. Mine biggest accomplishment (probably of my life) was turning our almost bankrupted company into profit just in 4 short months [0]. I learned many great things, but the most important lesson is that if you t
498.
by doh 10y ago
Never tried it on AWS so can't comment on that. It works very well on GCP however. We send over 1M request to their API to rescale the stack every single day (they had to up our limits because it was always timeouting on us).
499.
by doh 10y ago
I would claim we're also https://twitter.com/synopsi/status/811755523091480576
500.
by doh 10y ago
We already have huge portion of the system in C/C++ ;)
501.
by doh 10y ago
You're still thinking about these servers as a bare metal. We don't keep the servers running. We create a server always from scratch or based on an image we prepared or with a docker container that is automatically pulled from an
502.
by doh 10y ago
You've a good logic in this, but you don't have enough details about us to judge it properly. The gain would be much smaller than you think and we would lose a lot of freedom, which would slow us down.
503.
by doh 10y ago
Well, no. You're calculating with 100% utilization + with normal servers. Preemptible (or spot) instances are way cheaper. For instance 8 core 7GB ram preemptible server on GCE costs around $45/month under full utilization. We may
504.
by doh 10y ago
@user5994461 can't reply to your comment for some reason, but you're correct. Ansible would never scale. We ditched it a long time ago. We're using packer to create images/docker and then distribute them automatically vi
505.
by doh 10y ago
You summed up nicely, up until the last point. I understand why would think so, because you don't know our setup. Just to give you an idea, we process 16PB of data every single month. This is an ingress traffic. If we would pay for thi
506.
by doh 10y ago
We have some large servers, but not too many of them. We're running 32 core nodes that are holding our Postgres, but the majority is smaller.
507.
by doh 10y ago
We don't host on AWS, we host on GCE. Also you're way off with your estimation. We pay significantly less. As the instance go, we have almost everything ranging from many thousands on the micro side to hundreds on the largest side
508.
by doh 10y ago
I agree but that's years out. We are barely scratching the surface.
509.
by doh 10y ago
What kind of servers run at that price range? I've listed [0] some of the reasons why are we hosting in cloud instead of our own datacenter. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260805
510.
by doh 10y ago
I didn't blur anything so you can see for yourself http://imgur.com/14upQ5j

More ›