Does it scale? Who cares (2011)

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by acdha on Sunday April 09, 2017 @09:51AM (#14072257)

I think you misunderstand my use of unremarkable. It's not wrong or bad but key parts are the same stack you'd have picked 1-2 decades ago – well implemented, values scaled up, yes, but something you could have shown people in 2000 and not had to explain more than that the hardware costs so much less.

I think that's good: SQL databases are very mature and you don't want to be exciting for your core business data if you don't get some major benefit to defray the cost. Boring is a delightful characteristic for data storage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by user5994461 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @10:00AM (#14072307)

My bad then. I think that using a proven technology perfectly tuned and the way it's meant to be done, is remarkable. This should be promoted more, instead of the new and shiny.

I'm not sure you could get 1TB of memory and multi TB SSD drives anywhere in the 2000's, even for a million dollar. That makes a major difference in the ability to scale up. Data didn't grow, storing 1M user account always took the same space.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Does it scale? Who cares (2011) by acdha on Sunday April 09, 2017 @04:21PM (#14074163)

Agreed that data sizes would have been far more of a challenge – far more people used clustered services just because a single box only supported so much RAM, RAID arrays for IOPs and size as well as redundancy, etc. – so it's arguably become much easier for a growing chunk of the industry.

[ Parent | on HN ]