undefined | Better HN

0 pointshyperknot7mo ago0 comments

I'm sure the server hardware is not a problem. The full dataset is 150 GB and the server has 64 GB RAM, most of which will be never requested. So I'm sure that the used tiles would actually get served from OS cache. If not, it's on a RAID 0 NVME SSD, connected locally.

What I've been referring to is the fact that even unlimited 1 Gbps connections can be quite expensive, now try to find a 2x40 gig connection for a reasonable money. That one user generated 200 TB in 24 hours! I have no idea about bandwidth pricing, but I bet it ain't cheap to serve that.

0 comments

Sesse__7mo ago

Well, “bandwidth is expensive” is a true claim, but it's also a very different claim from “a [normal] caching server couldn't handle 56 Gbit/sec”…?

hyperknotOP7mo ago

You are correct. I was putting "a caching server on their side" in the context of their side being a single dev hobby project running on a VPS, exploding on the weekend. I agree that these servers do exist and some companies do pay for this bandwidth as part of their normal operations.

Aeolun7mo ago

56 Gbit/sec costs you about €590/day even on Hetzner.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse