Re:"How hard can it be to implement?"
by weaksauce on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @01:23PM
(#1672574)
Might be trickier to do this if the foreign key is across a shard or if the db record for the comment wasn't structured like this. One situation could be because they store the threaded comments with the thread key in each record and also the parent comment key. This would be useful to pull down all the comments associated with a thread in one db query but also allow you to have the nested comments.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
37signals don't use sharding. They use one database server with enough RAM to load the db into memory
One database server for the whole of basecamp?
Edit: I found this:
> With that in mind, we went looking for an option to host the Basecamp database, which is becoming a monster. As of this writing, the database is 325GB and handles several thousand queries per second at peak times.
325GB RAM?! But now they have multiple servers. Read more: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2479-nuts-bolts-database-serv...
Re:"How hard can it be to implement?"
by die_sekte on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @04:59PM
(#1673474)
HP sells servers with up to 64 cores and 2 TB of memory. Considering the car that DHH just bought himself, they should be able to buy/lease several of them.
Are these x86 servers? Or do you mean a single chip with 64 cores?
Re:"How hard can it be to implement?"
by whatusername on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:01AM
(#1674829)
Re:"How hard can it be to implement?"
by aaronblohowiak on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @07:42PM
(#1673902)
You can get servers that can house 512GB or 1TB of RAM from HP/Sun/Dell. Scaling out your app servers and scaling up your DB is common in systems that don't need to be truly "web scale".
Re:"How hard can it be to implement?"
by die_sekte on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @03:53PM
(#1673219)
They do that for everything but Basecamp[1]. I wonder what they use for Basecamp.
[1] Second paragraph: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2479-nuts-bolts-database-serv...