Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by skunkworker on Thursday March 14, 2024 @04:52PM
(#39708831)
What is your definition of "decently well", and is your primary cluster (without replicas) above 1PB?
Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by simonw on Thursday March 14, 2024 @05:37PM
(#39709269)
They said 20TiB * 68, which I think is 1.5PB.
Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by skunkworker on Friday March 15, 2024 @05:09PM
(#39720735)
That could be all of the nodes, or just the primaries without replicas.
Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by VHRanger on Thursday March 14, 2024 @09:57PM
(#39711320)
Is there a reason there's comparatively little storage in your machines in relation to RAM or even CPUs?
Do your machines do compute heavy loads or something?
For a DB I'd expect a lot more storage per node
Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by dijit on Friday March 15, 2024 @12:10AM
(#39711992)
NVMe SSDs aren't so large unfortunately.
a 1U server has capacity for 8 drives, we used 2 slots for the OS (RAID1), 2 slots for the WAL volume (2 slots) leaving only 4 slots in RAID10.
So I'm already cheating a little and claiming WAL storage was part of total storage.
Re:How Figma's databases team lived to tell the scale
by VHRanger on Friday March 15, 2024 @08:50AM
(#39714937)
Shouldn't you try to get something with PCIe bifurcation in this case?
I doubt you're saturating the PCIe bus bandwidth on any of them?
I imagine your DB is extremely high performance, though!
Not sure what your definition of massive is, I think Spanner would easily beat it.
Also, it's very use-case dependent, you can't "just use" Citus for everything, it's not quite as flexible as a bog-standard pgsql install due to the way it's sharding, you have to be a tad more careful with your data model.