Hacker News Reader

Comment by haiku2077 | Hacker News Reader

haiku2077

Modern CPUs are crazy fast. 4chan was serving 4 million users with a single server, a ten year old version of PHP and like 10000 lines of spaghetti code. If you do even basic code quality, profiling and optimization you can serve a huge number of users with a fraction of a CPU core.

I/O tends to be the bottleneck (disk IOPS and throughput, network connections, IOPS and throughput). HN only serves text so that's mostly an easy problem.

View on HN

I still can't wrap my head around how the conventional wisdom in the industry to work around that problem is to add even more slow network I/O dependencies.

Yo dawg, I hear you want to cache your cache of shards.

4chan is a special case, because all of its content pages are static HTML files being served by nginx that are rewritten on the server every time someone makes a post. There's nothing dynamic, everyone is served the exact same page, which makes it much easier to scale.

... which, again, shows just how much power you can get out of a 10 year old server if you're not being a sucker for the "latest and greatest" resume-driven-development crap.

Just look at New Reddit, it's an insane GraphQL abomination.

Here goes all your software engineering classes. So bare it's hilarious

It's not a special case at all. 20 years ago this was standard architecture (hell, HN still caches static versions of pages for logged-out users).

No, what changed is the industry devolved into over-reliance on mountains of 'frameworks' and other garbage that no one person fully understands how it all works.

Things have gotten worse, not better.

The "this won't scale" dogma pushed by cloud providers via frameworks has actually scared people into believing they really need a lot more resources than they actually do to display information on the web.

It's really dumbfounding that most devs fell for it even as raw computing power has gotten drastically cheaper.

I was having a conversation with some younger devs about hosting websites for our photography hobbies. One was convinced hosting the photos on your own domain would bankrupt you in bandwidth costs. It's wild.

I very much enjoyed the Vercel fanboys posting their enormous bills on Twitter, and then daring people to explain how they could possibly run it on, you know, a server for anything close to the price.

I took the bait once and analyzed a $5000 bill. IIRC, it worked out to about the compute provided by an RPi 4. “OK, but what about when your site explodes in popularity?” “I dunno, take the other $4900 and buy more RPis?”

Or get a hundred Hetzner dedis

Sounds like the real web scale was all of the AWS bills we paid along the way

Static HTML and caching aren't special cases by any means, but a message board where literally nothing changes between users certainly seems like a special case, even twenty years ago. You don't need that in order to make a site run fast, of course, but that limitation certainly simplifies things.

I wouldn't call that a special case, just using a good tool for the job.

I worked at at company near the top of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c... for a while. It was extremely common that web services only used about 1/20th of a CPU core's timeshare. These were dynamic web services/APIs. (We did have to allocate more CPU than that in practice to improve I/O latency, but that was to let the CPU idle to be ready to quickly react to incoming network traffic.)

This was many years ago on hardware several times slower than the current generation of servers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com