News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by timewarrior on Sunday April 09, 2017 @12:46AM (#14070522)
I mentioned something similar in a separate comment.

My initial DB schema was pretty bad. We did at 2 schema rewrites and migrations from the launch to 5M users. Each time it took 2 weeks of sleep less nights.

The machines today are really powerful. You can do a lot with 244 GB RAM machines backed by SSD.

Someone who doesn't have the skill set to be able to scale once they get traction - it's likely they will not have the skills to design for scale at start.

My recommendation to everyone would be pick a language and db you are most comfortable with and get started as soon as you can. You will fail on the product side a lot more times before you will fail on the technical side.

And if you are failing on technical side, reach out to me. I will definitely be able to help you find a way out. I am not sure if there is any product guy in the world who an make a similar claim on the product front. However there are at least dozens of technical guys in the world who can make a claim like I did.

So focus on launching the product as soon as possible. Work hard, reach out for help if needed. You will eventually get success.

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by developer2 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @08:37AM (#14071968)
>> You can do a lot with 244 GB RAM machines

Is this a typo of "244 GB" instead of "24 GB"? Nearly any company that has a single machine provisioned with 244 GB of RAM is doing something severely wrong, likely putting the company's ability to grow at risk. Such a machine screams of trying to vertically scale a poorly performing legacy product instead of figuring out to horizontally scale out with 16-64 GB servers.

That much memory on a single server is a huge red flag for 95-99%+ of companies. It takes a very specialized system (ie: you probably don't fit the mold, no matter what your excuses are) to require such a server.

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by bpicolo on Sunday April 09, 2017 @09:41AM (#14072222)
Pretty sure it's not a typo. Amazon i3.16xlarge is 488 GB of Ram, 64 vCPUs, and a 20 Gigabit connection. Postgres/Mysql can absolutely scream perf-wise on that.
Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by fulafel on Monday April 10, 2017 @11:55PM (#14084726)
AWS also has 2 TB instances: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/

Outside AWS, you can put 3-6 TB in a normal-ish server from Dell or HP, or 64 TB in a big iron box from Fujitsu or IBM.

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by timewarrior on Sunday April 09, 2017 @11:41AM (#14072793)
+1 - it wasn't a typo. DB machines benefit a lot from huge RAM.
Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by ne01 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @01:15PM (#14073276)
I know Basecamp uses a server with 2TB of RAM for their single MySQL server. FYI CTO of Basecamp is the creator of Ruby on Rails -- smart people.

Checkout​ stack overflow stack too.

Their system is faster too.

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by developer2 on Monday April 10, 2017 @04:59PM (#14082501)
That is actually insane. The day their MySQL cluster experiences a severe downtime incident, it is likely going to take an enormous amount of time to recover.

That is my intuition. If you know of a video or blog post (conference, talk, article, etc.) where someone explains the benefits of a 2 TB MySQL server and how it is not a crazy bad idea, I would love to see it. Because my 15 years of professional experience screams "NO WAY IN HELL" at that one.

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by fulafel on Monday April 10, 2017 @11:45PM (#14084681)
Keeping all data cached in RAM is something that eats a bunch of memory, but is not usually wrong.