zlacker

>>pul+(OP)
> Vertical scaling — a bigger, exponentially more expensive server

This is in practice not true at all. Vertical scaling is typically a sublinear cost increase (up to a point, but that point is a ridiculous beast of a machine), since you're (typically) upgrading just the CPU and/or just the RAM or just the storage; not all of them at once.

There are instances where you can get nearly 10x the machine for 2x the cost.

>>margin+lu
For small consumer products sure, but we're talking at the extreme end of performance and physical capabilities. Sure you can get a 2Ghz CPU for ~2x the price of a 200Mhz CPU, but how much are you going to pay for a 6.0Ghz CPU vs 5.0Ghz? 6.1Ghz vs 6.0Ghz?

>>teawre+gC
You can go from a 8T/16C Epyc 7xxx series CPU to a 32T/64C CPU and not even double the cost.

>>margin+CM
That's more like horizontal scaling, though. You get more throughput (transactions per second) but not lower latency (seconds per transaction). Though it may be more cost-effective to have a single 32-core machine than two 16-core machines.

>>fluori+uR
I disagree with this definition of horizontal scaling. If you're moving to a bigger computer rather than more computers, then you're scaling vertically and not horizontally.

(and fwiw, wikipedia agrees with this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability#Horizontal_(scale_... )