zlacker

>>evanwe+(OP)
This isn't shocking - Twitter was notorious for being held together with Scotch tape technically.

Honestly this hands-on approach is an impressive example of doing things that don't scale.

>>gringo+Hw
I found it amusing that Twitter was Rails' biggest advertisement. Everyone wanted to use Rails but Twitter turned into a franken app with different stacks to keep it running

>>gianca+1x
From 2008:

Scaling is fundamentally about the ability of a system to easily support many servers. So something is scalable if you can easily start with one server and go easily to 100, 1000, or 10,000 servers and get performance improvement commensurate with the increase in resources.

When people talk about languages scaling, this is silly, because it is really the architecture that determines the scalability. One language may be slower than another, but this will not affect the ability of the system to add more servers.

Typically one language could be two or three, or even ten times slower. But all this would mean in a highly scalable system is that you would need two or three or ten times the number of servers to handle a given load. Servers aren't free (just ask Facebook), but a well-capitalized company can certainly afford them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/5/why-can-t-twitter-scal...

>>scarfa+0L
Yes, well, that's a nice idea in theory. In practice, you could get over 10x (sometimes 100x) the rps off a box running the new, JVM-based services vs their Rails-equivalents. Orders of magnitude probably matter a little less when you're well-funded and have hundreds of servers, but when you are thinking about trying to go public and your bottom line is being scrutinized and you have 10's of thousands of servers, it starts to matter.

>>sulam+VO
That's exactly what he said.

but a well-capitalized company can certainly afford them

But these days when you don't have to buy servers and make a long term capital commitment and you can use something like AWS, if you have a scalable but not efficient architecture and you have the faith of the investors, you can get enough servers to get you over the hump temporarily, slowly start replacing the most performance sensitive part of your architecture and then scale down.

Look at what HN darling Dropbox did, they bootstrapped on AWS, got big and then when the time was right, they moved to a cheaper architecture - off of AWS and built their own infrastructure.

>>scarfa+5R
And this is exactly what Twitter did, and how Twitter replaced Ruby and Rails with the JVM.

>>sulam+D72
I doubt they just "replaced" Ruby on Rails with the JVM without making any architectural changes based on the lessons they learned from thier first implementations.

>>scarfa+Ya2
Did I say that? We (I spent 4.5 years there, starting with the writing of the first service extracted from the monorail and left shortly before the 'twitter' repo was deleted) absolutely went through a huge architectural transition, arguably multiple transitions. The biggest was the breakup of the monolithic Rails-based application into microservices running on the JVM. These services generally scaled ten to one hundred times better than the code they replaced. (By "scaled" here I specifically mean that RPS was 10-100X higher per physical machine for services on the JVM as compared to the RPS the Rails stack could handle before falling over).

>>sulam+WX2
I was replying to this:

And this is exactly what Twitter did, and how Twitter replaced Ruby and Rails with the JVM

In the context of my original post where the contention was that languages don't scale that architectures do. Your post was that it was exactly what you did - replaced Ruby with Java. Not that you replaced Ruby with Java and rearchitected the entire stack - exactly what my original post said waa the problem with Twitter - the architecture.