Hacker News Reader

Comment by MatthiasPortzel | Hacker News Reader

From the CEO’s blog today:

> You mention Blaze and Ad-free doing well, but their adoption is so small relative to the use of Tumblr their revenue couldn't support a fraction of the ~1,000 servers it takes to run Tumblr, much less any salaries.

View on HN

I think we're saying the same thing, they're successful in the sense that Tumblr users like them but they're small potatoes. Tumblr users aren't necessarily allergic to monetization but the ones they've found don't pay the bills.

(person who doesn't really know what they're talking about when it comes to services of this scale asking) Why does Tumblr need 1000 servers to run? You can serve a lot of text and relatively well compressed image files with not a lot of hardware.

A lot of people use it to promote their art or to share screencaps/gifs/clips of movies, so I think people would get pretty cranky if the image files were overly compressed (unless it's the magic kind of compression that doesn't cost any fidelity. I don't really understand how compression works).

That's without getting into video content.

It's a social network. Tumblr serves a lot of traffic, and has a lot of data. The product data alone is over 1 trillion rows in relational databases by my estimation (former early eng there), and that's not accounting for replication / high availability.

1000 servers actually sounds surprisingly small. It was a fair bit higher than that a decade ago, and that was on bare metal then, vs (afaik) cloud VMs now. Then again, their traffic is a lot lower now, but still nothing to sneeze at.

For the YC audience: Tumblr has about 60B images using 8 petabytes of storage. 205TB of memory, 46,752 CPU threads, 250 kW of energy. About 100k requests a second, a petabyte a day of bandwidth.

So in short, the answer to my question is that the scale is way way larger than I imagined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com