Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is everything so scalable?

stavros.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 383 posts

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#61

Post by CableNinja »

BirAdam wrote: post #29

Just to be honest for a bit here... we also should be asking what kind of scale? Quite a while ago, before containers were a thing at all, I did systems for some very large porn companies. They were doing streaming video at scale before most, and the only other people working on video at that scale were Youtube. The general setup for the largest players in that space was haproxy in front of nginx in front of several…

I thought i knew about scaled deployments before i started working where i do now. After staring here, i realized i had no idea what an environment of huuuuge scale actually was. Id been part of multi site deployments and scaled infra, but it was basically potatoes comparatively. We have a team whose platform we, on IT, call the DoS'er of the company. Its responsible for processing hundreds of thousands of test runs a day, and data is fed to a plethora of services after. The scale is so large that they are able to take down critical services, or deeply impact them, purely due to throughput, if a developer goes too far (like say uploading a million small logs to an s3 bucket every minute).

We also have been contacted by AWS having them ask us what the hell we are doing, for a specific set of operations. We do a huge prep for some operations, and the prep feeds massive amounts of data through some AWS services, so much so, they thought we were under attack or had been compromised. Nope, just doin data ingestion!

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#62

Post by gf000 »

aeyes wrote: post #44
BirAdam wrote: post #29

Just to be honest for a bit here... we also should be asking what kind of scale? Quite a while ago, before containers were a thing at all, I did systems for some very large porn companies. They were doing streaming video at scale before most, and the only other people working on video at that scale were Youtube. The general setup for the largest players in that space was haproxy in front of nginx in front of several…

The architecture you describe is ok because in the end it is a fairly simple website. Little user interaction, limited amount of content (at most a few million records), few content changes per day. The most complex part is probably to have some kind of search engine but even with 10 million videos an ElasticSearch index is probably no larger than 1GB. The only problem is that there is a lot of video data.

As opposed to what problem?

Like I can honestly have trouble listing too many business problems/areas that would fail to scale with their expected user count, given reasonable hardware and technical competence.

Like YouTube and Facebook are absolute outliers. Famously, stackoverflow used to run on a single beefy machine (and the reason they changed their architecture was not due to scaling issues), and "your" startup ain't needing more scale than SO.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#63

Post by the8472 »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #33
the8472 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000TPS isn't that much? Engineer for low latency and with a 10ms budget that'd be 10 cores if it were CPU-bound, less in practice since usually part of the time is spent in IO wait.

> 1000TPS isn't that much? Why does that matter? My argument is: Engineer for what you know, leave the rest for when you know better, which isn't before you have lots of users.

What I'm saying is that "building for 1000TPS" is not what gets you an overengineered 5-layer microservice architecture. If you build for a good user experience (which includes low latency) you get that not-that-big scale without sharding.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#64

Post by okaleniuk »

Most of the startups actually plan to survive for more than 2 months. And it makes total sense to think about scalability, reliability, and performance while it's still possible to change your whole stack every other week. Not forgetting about other things such as securing your cash flow, growing your talent pool, protecting your IP, etc. Finding a good balance between multiple focii is exactly the job for a founder. Of course, it's a hard job, that's why we don't see many successful startups to begin with.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#65

Post by zokier »

In lot of contexts scaling down is far more important than scaling up. In that sense scalability is cost-optimization; instead of provisioning fixed capacity that is enough for (predicted) peak loads, you can scale based on actual demand and save money or have higher utilization.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#66

Post by sreekanth850 »

crazygringo wrote: post #35
jwr wrote: post #5

I don't get this scalability craze either. Computers are stupid fast these days and unless you are doing something silly, it's difficult to run into CPU speed limitations. I've been running a SaaS for 10 years now. Initially on a single server, after a couple of years moved to a distributed database (RethinkDB) and a 3-server setup, not for "scalability" but to get redundancy and prevent data loss. Haven't felt a nee…

Scalability isn't just about CPU. It's just as much about storage and IO and memory and bandwidth. Different types of sites have completely different resource profiles.

Microservice is not a solution for scalability. There are multiple options for building scalable software, even a monolith or a modular monolith with proper loadbalanced setup will drastically reduce the complexity of microservice and get massive scale. Only bottleneck will be db.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#67

Post by ipsento606 »

strken wrote: post #41
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #3

I've seen startups killed because of one or two "influential" programmers deciding they need to start architecturing the project for 1000TPS and 10K daily users, as "that's the proper way to build scalable software", while the project itself hasn't even found product-market fit yet and barely has users. Inevitably, the project needs to make a drastic change which now is so painful to do because it no longer fits the…

I've seen senior engineers get fired and the business suffer a setback because they didn't have any way to scale beyond a single low spec VPS from a budget provider, and their system crashed when a hall full of students tried to sign up together during a demo and each triggered 200ms of bcrypt CPU activity.

> they didn't have any way to scale beyond a single low spec VPS from a budget provider

they couldn't redeploy to a high-spec VPS instead?

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#68

Post by sgarland »

reactordev wrote: post #53

I read this, and have the opposite experience. Your monolith will fester as developers step on each others toes. You aren’t solving for scalability, you’re solving for sovereignty. Giving other teams the ability to develop their own service without needing to conform to your archaic grey beard architecture restrictions and your lack of understanding what a pod is or how to get your logs from your cloud. No, this whol…

> Giving other teams the ability to develop their own service without needing to conform to your archaic grey beard architecture restrictions

IME at many different SaaS companies, the only one that had serious reliability was the one that had “archaic grey beard architecture restrictions.” Devs want to use New Shiny X? Put a formal request before the architectural review committee; they’ll read it, then explain how what the team wants already exists in a different form.

I don’t know why so many developers - notably, not system design experts, nor having any background in infrastructure - think that they know better than the gray beards. They’ve seen some shit.

> and your lack of understanding what a pod is or how to get your logs from your cloud.

No one said the gray beards don’t know this. At the aforementioned company, we ran hybrid on-prem and AWS, and our product was hybrid K8s and traditional Linux services.

Re: cloud logs, every time I’ve needed logs, it has consistently been faster for me to ssh onto the instance (assuming it wasn’t ephemeral) and use ripgrep. If I don’t know where the logs were emitted from, I’ll find that first, then ssh. The only LaaS I’ve used that was worth a damn was Sumologic, but I have no idea how they are now, as that was years ago.

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#69

Post by ben_w »

jwr wrote: post #5

I don't get this scalability craze either. Computers are stupid fast these days and unless you are doing something silly, it's difficult to run into CPU speed limitations. I've been running a SaaS for 10 years now. Initially on a single server, after a couple of years moved to a distributed database (RethinkDB) and a 3-server setup, not for "scalability" but to get redundancy and prevent data loss. Haven't felt a nee…

> unless you are doing something silly, it's difficult to run into CPU speed limitations.

Yes, but it's not difficult to do something silly without even noticing until too late. Implicitly (and unintentionally) calling something with the wrong big-O, for example.

That said, anyone know what's up with the slow deletion of Safari history? Clearly O(n), but as shown in this blog post still only deleted at a rate of 22 items in 10 seconds: https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2025/06/19-15.56.44.html

Re: Why is everything so scalable?

#70

Post by ahoka »

BirAdam wrote: post #29

Just to be honest for a bit here... we also should be asking what kind of scale? Quite a while ago, before containers were a thing at all, I did systems for some very large porn companies. They were doing streaming video at scale before most, and the only other people working on video at that scale were Youtube. The general setup for the largest players in that space was haproxy in front of nginx in front of several…

Are those over engineered systems even actually scalable? I know teams who designed a CQRS architecture using messages queues and a distributed NoSQL database and fail to sustain 10req/s for a read in something that is basically a CRUD application. Heck once someone literally said "But we use Kafka, why aren't we fast?!".
Post reply on HN