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.
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.
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.
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.