161–164 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you're a threat to FB, the unthinkable will happen.
If you're a threat to FB you: (1) can afford to roll your own framework (2) can afford the lawyers required to point out that this doesn't hold water
"We estimate that Facebook has 830,000 servers in 2017." No way this can be true. Facebook scaled primarily using CDNs like Akamai. Akamai is the largest CDN in the world and has no more than 300k-350k servers all over the world. It's one of the largest distributed system in the world. I worked there, so I know this for sure. Facebook has recently been moving their data in house, but they do not have 830,000 servers.…
Not to be a jerk, but, running Facebook over AWS is not a CDN problem. That's crazy talk. There are far more Facebook requirements that AWS can meet that Akamai cannot. You have to look beyond their content delivery reqs. Also, they could absolutely have 800k servers. I don't think comparing their size to Akamai is fair. The requirements of each company are drastically different. Do I think the 830k is accurate? No,…
The problem is mostly a CDN one, crunching data and writing to the servers are second to actually serving users fast.
For example, I don't necessarily need to see the latest posts, comments, etc. so you can queue up the writing and sync data later, but when I hit fb.com, I have to see stuff...
The answer is no. This is because you can't compare commodity hosting like AWS with specialized hosting like Facebook's data centers and infrastructure software. This question of possibility has nothing to do with 'number of servers' or 'amount of money'. It's architecturally incompatible.
it's still possible, you just have to change the architecture
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be a jerk, but, running Facebook over AWS is not a CDN problem. That's crazy talk. There are far more Facebook requirements that AWS can meet that Akamai cannot. You have to look beyond their content delivery reqs. Also, they could absolutely have 800k servers. I don't think comparing their size to Akamai is fair. The requirements of each company are drastically different. Do I think the 830k is accurate? No,…
Akamai handles 15-30% of all web traffic on any given day with 200k-300k servers...does Facebook have that kind of load in a day? The problem is mostly a CDN one, crunching data and writing to the servers are second to actually serving users fast. For example, I don't necessarily need to see the latest posts, comments, etc. so you can queue up the writing and sync data later, but when I hit fb.com, I have to see stuf…