Re:High Performance at Massive Scale: Lessons Learned at Fac...
by nbm on Thursday July 11, 2013 @03:01PM
(#6028357)
In some ways that might be an advantage. More people are going through the growing pains associated with tens of millions of people using their site and request-per-second and data size problems, and making trade-offs for that providing service at that scale.
Jumping to Facebook's current architecture and taking on the trade-offs taken there (assuming you even have a problem where those trade-offs make sense at massive scale) is probably not the right thing to do when you are much smaller (in terms of requests/traffic/load, servers, and employees).
Re:High Performance at Massive Scale: Lessons Learned at Fac...
by nazka on Friday July 12, 2013 @05:16AM
(#6031705)
Yes, it is true. I just wanted to say it, so everyone knows. Some guys like me are more interested on the Facebook's current architecture so it was important to notice the difference and avoid wrong assumptions.
Re:High Performance at Massive Scale: Lessons Learned at Fac...
by WestCoastJustin on Thursday July 11, 2013 @09:10PM
(#6030283)
The Guardian (citing a May 2012 Nielsen.com [2]) reported that Facebook is #1 (by a wide margin - almost 3x the closest competitor) as measured by the time users spend on the site.
Jumping to Facebook's current architecture and taking on the trade-offs taken there (assuming you even have a problem where those trade-offs make sense at massive scale) is probably not the right thing to do when you are much smaller (in terms of requests/traffic/load, servers, and employees).
Or maybe the slides are just that old? :-)
#1 being...? I get it that it's from 2009, but surely even back then Google Search wasn't king "by the time users spend on the site". Maybe GMail ?
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/22/website-...
[2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AuZLaKQQs5xpdGd...
Still waiting on that...