|
|
|
|
|
by jiggawatts
1260 days ago
|
|
> which is how many hard drives you can plug in to a non-mainframe machine for historical image storage. You would be surprised. First off, SSDs are denser than hard drives now if you're willing to spend $$$. Second, "plug in" doesn't necessarily mean "in the chassis". You can expand storage with external disk arrays in all sorts of ways. Everything from external PCI-e cages to SAS disk arrays, fibre channel, NVMe-over-Ethernet, etc... It's fairly easy to get several petabytes of fast storage directly managed by one box. The only limit is the total usable PCIe bandwidth of the CPUs, which for a current-gen EPYC 9004 series processors in a dual-socket configuration is something crazy like 512 GB/s. This vastly exceeds typical NIC speeds. You'd have to balance available bandwidth between multiple 400 Gbps NICs and disks to be able to saturate the system. People really overestimate the data volume put out by a service like Twitter while simultaneously underestimating the bandwidth capability of a single server. |
|
It's outright comical. Above we have people thinking somehow amount of TLS connections single server can handle is a problem, in service where there would be hundreds of thousands lines of code to generate the content served over it, all while using numbers from what seems like 10+ years old server hardware