[ignoramous]

> From the paper [0]: DynamoDB consists of tens of microservices.

Ha! For folks who think two-pizza teams mean 100s of microservices... this is probably the second most scaled-out storage service at AWS (behind S3?), and it runs tens of microservices (pretty sure these aren't micro the way most folks would presume 'em to be).

> What's exciting for me about this paper is that it covers DynamoDB's journey...

Assuming these comments are true [1][2], in a classic Amazon fashion [3], the paper fails to acknowledge a FOSS database (once?) underneath it: MySQL/InnoDB (and references it as B-Tree instead).

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220712155558/https://www.useni...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13173927

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18871854

[3] https://archive.is/T1ZNJ

[hintymad]

I'm not sure about DDB, but I know in AWS in general building a new service does not give you credit by default. It's not like the shit Uber promoted: Yeh! We have 8000 services. Look how great we are! In fact, people usually question if someone proposes to create a new service. Working Backwards (i.e., solving real user problems) and Invent and Simplify are indeed two powerful leadership principles. And of course, the sheer amount of work involved in setting up a new service is so much that people have to think twice between starting a new service.

[deanCommie]

Lots can change over the years. Your links are from 2016 - it's not conceivable that in the last 6 years, Amazon has changed some of the implementation?

[rmbyrro]

DynamoDB was already large scale at that time.

The point is: the number of services don't need to scale with the level of demand.

[deanCommie]

My comment was about " paper fails to acknowledge a FOSS database (once?) underneath it: MySQL/InnoDB (and references it as B-Tree instead)." should have been more clear