Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ThinkBeat 641 days ago
This does not make sense to me.

They are processing 2.5 Billion images and videos in a single day. They decided to self host their GPUs.

The solution uses off-the-shelf hardware, with GPU per "server", add it all together into a single rack? And that is the GPU compute needed to process all the videos 24/7?

Then they have this rack in the office, but they cant find a place to put it. That might be a decent thing to start out with, before the build. Where do we put it?

But no. Planning for multiple network links, multiple redundant power, cooling, security, monitoring, and backup generators, handling backups, fire suppression, and failover to a different region if something fails was not necessary.

Because Google book?

But our (insert ad here) WeWork let us put our servers in a room on the same floor, (their data centerish capabilities seem limited)

There are so many additional costs that are not factored into the article.

I am sure once they accrue serious downtime a few times and irate customers, then paying for hosting in a proper data center might start making sense.

Now I am basing this comment on the assumption that the company is providing continuous real-time operations for their clients.

If it is more batch operated, where downtime is fine as long as results are delivered let us say within 12 hours.

1 comments

These servers are indeed job processing servers. They are critical but not milliseconds critical. Cooling, security, monitoring, backup generators, and backup of data all are taken care of.