On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, guy keren wrote:
Peter wrote:
Afaik the fastest servers (including Google and many others) do not use SQL
for anything. An optimized hash table (tiered etc) should work much better
than any SQL.
funny you should mention google - because all their computers that run the
Geoff - when it will be _you_ who manage to run a multi-billion company,
and not google, i'll listen to you, rather then look at what they did.
the fact is - there are ways to use cheap hardware to get a reliable,
scaleable and maintainable service. i only wanted to bring a
counter-example t
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:03:51PM +0200, guy keren wrote:
> they use a replicating file-system + lots of communicatoins redundancy +
> monitoring software + lots of technicians and spare parts, to get the
> reliability they want.
I see two problems with that. One is that the average technician
Peter wrote:
Afaik the fastest servers (including Google and many others) do not use
SQL for anything. An optimized hash table (tiered etc) should work much
better than any SQL.
funny you should mention google - because all their computers that run
the google sites, are no-name 1U and 2U
On Thursday 22 March 2007, Peter wrote:
> I am not an expert in database servers but I know 2 or 3 things about
> 'commodity' PC hardware. If you want to build a server by saving money
> on hardware, don't.
>
> Go and buy a 2nd hand AS/400 and put Linux (or *BSD) on one of its
> images and that's s
I am not an expert in database servers but I know 2 or 3 things about
'commodity' PC hardware. If you want to build a server by saving money
on hardware, don't.
Go and buy a 2nd hand AS/400 and put Linux (or *BSD) on one of its
images and that's something that will work essentially forever.
