31–40 of 145 posts
Someone ask Microsoft what does it feel to be bested by an open source project on their very own cloud platform!!! Lol.
I'm not sure that's the answer people are looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying this because OpenAI didnt choose SQL Server?
In 2026 is SQL Server ever the answer?
I always wondered what kind of instance companies at that level of scalability are using. Anyone here have some ideas? How much cpu/ram? Do they use the same instance types available to everyone, or does AWS and co offer custom hardware for these big customers?
> scaled up by increasing the instance size I always wondered what kind of instance companies at that level of scalability are using. Anyone here have some ideas? How much cpu/ram? Do they use the same instance types available to everyone, or does AWS and co offer custom hardware for these big customers?
For example, Azure Standard_E192ibds_v6 is 96 cores with 1.8 TB of memory and 10 TB of local SSD storage with 3 million IOPS.
Past those "general purpose" VMs you get the enormous machines with 8, 16, or even 32 sockets.[1] These are almost exclusively used for SAP HANA in-memory databases or similar ERP workloads.
Azure Standard_M896ixds_24_v3 provides 896 cores, 32 TB of memory, and 185 Gbps Ethernet networking. This is generally available, but you have to allocate the quota through a support ticket and you may have to wait and/or get your finances "approved" by Microsoft. Something like this will set you back [edited] $175K per month[/edited]. (I suspect OpenAI is getting a huge effective discount.)
Personally, I'm a fan of "off label" use of the High Performance Compute (HPC) sizes[2] for database servers.
The Standard_HX176rs HPC VM size gives you 176 cores and 1.4 TB of memory. That's similar to the E-series VM above, but with a higher compute-to-memory ratio. The memory throughput is also way better because it has some HBM chips for L3 (or L4?) cache. In my benchmarks it absolutely smoked the general-purpose VMs at a similar price point.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/siz...
[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/siz...
I don’t get it. This whole thing says single writer does not scale, so we stopped writing as much and removed reads away from it, so it works ok and we decided that’s enough. I guess thats great.
There's nothing novel about optimizing queries, sharding and using read replicas.
> scaled up by increasing the instance size I always wondered what kind of instance companies at that level of scalability are using. Anyone here have some ideas? How much cpu/ram? Do they use the same instance types available to everyone, or does AWS and co offer custom hardware for these big customers?
This would be a particularly nice-to-have feature for Postgres - the option to have heavyweight locks just proactively cancel any conflicting workload. For any case where you have a high-throughput table, the damage of the heavyweight lock sitting there waiting (and blocking all new traffic) is generally much larger than just cancelling some running transactions.
> scaled up by increasing the instance size I always wondered what kind of instance companies at that level of scalability are using. Anyone here have some ideas? How much cpu/ram? Do they use the same instance types available to everyone, or does AWS and co offer custom hardware for these big customers?
The major hyperscalers all offer a plethora of virtual machines SKUs that are essentially one entire two-socket box with many-core CPUs. For example, Azure Standard_E192ibds_v6 is 96 cores with 1.8 TB of memory and 10 TB of local SSD storage with 3 million IOPS. Past those "general purpose" VMs you get the enormous machines with 8, 16, or even 32 sockets.[1] These are almost exclusively used for SAP HANA in-memory da…
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sap/latest/general/sap-hana-aws-...