SKA news

[AtW]

Can I just ask what you think is more problematic for a web server.

"1 table with one text field of 140 chars if that gets accessed 1 million times in 1 second"

"1 person accessing 140 million chars in one second"

I'd expect the first problem to be more difficult to resolve assuming pessimistic scenario (many IPs, TCP/IP used on many sockets etc)

[minestrone]

I'd expect the first problem to be more difficult to resolve assuming pessimistic scenario (many IPs, TCP/IP used on many sockets etc)

I am not asking for your solutions I am asking quite clearly...


Can I just ask what you think is more problematic for a web server.

"1 table with one text field of 140 chars if that gets accessed 1 million times in 1 second"

"1 person accessing 140 million chars in one second"

[minestrone]

Why do I bother, he is clearly useless.

[doodab]

I am not asking for your solutions I am asking quite clearly...


Can I just ask what you think is more problematic for a web server.

"1 table with one text field of 140 chars if that gets accessed 1 million times in 1 second"

"1 person accessing 140 million chars in one second"

It's a trick question. A web server couldn't do the first one without forwarding the request to a database.

A 1/4 million hits per second for static web content is doable on a single dual xeon box using an in memory cache though and I don't see why that wouldn't scale fairly well to more hardware.

So it would seem like the DB is going to be a bottleneck.

[AtW]

A 1/4 million hits per second for static web content is doable

Not if you get requests from 1/4 million unique IPs over TCP/IP.

Is it just me who thinks minestrone is an idiot?

[AtW]

It's a trick question. A web server couldn't do the first one without forwarding the request to a database.

Who said anything about any database in this scenario? We are talking about self contained webserver that has got 140 byte file (possibly cached) and 140 MB file (also possibly cached).

In one case it gets hit with 1 mln requests for 140 bytes and in another 1 requests for 140 MB.

I know I'd prefer the latter scenario and if the user has not got bandwidth to get data file in 1 second then it's problem beyond webserver.

[doodab]

Not if you get requests from 1/4 million unique IPs.

Why not? You think setup and tear down of the connections would be a problem?

I might have to do some more experiments. That's the trouble with being benched, no access to proper hardware for ******* about.

[doodab]

Who said anything about any database in this scenario? We are talking about self contained webserver that has got 140 byte file (possibly cached) and 140 MB file (also possibly cached).

It was you who said that scaling front end web stuff was easy, then Soupy was talking about tables and fields. Perhaps he meant it would be a picnic?

[AtW]

Why not? You think setup and tear down of the connections would be a problem?

I think you'll run out of TCP/IP sockets.

[AtW]

If I have 1 table with one text field of 140 chars if that gets accessed 1 million times in 1 second that is easier to run than 1 person accessing 140 million chars in one second.

It does not say database here, text field can be in memcache or on disk.

If you keep 140 MB file in a database then you are an idiot.