Comments on: Twitter’s one-to-many scaling impossible? http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/ Out In His Elements Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:16:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Crossing the streams - large numbers of Twitter updates http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-296 Crossing the streams - large numbers of Twitter updates Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:51:57 +0000 http://solyoung.com/?p=209#comment-296 [...] Bilson (@cbilson) had a good description regarding my post about Twitter’s scaling/architecture challenge. “Kevin Rose and Leo Laporte tweet at the same time = crossing the [...] [...] Bilson (@cbilson) had a good description regarding my post about Twitter’s scaling/architecture challenge. “Kevin Rose and Leo Laporte tweet at the same time = crossing the [...]

]]> By: Sol Young http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-2883 Sol Young Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:08:01 +0000 http://solyoung.com/?p=209#comment-2883 I don't think so. They are, or will be, hitting numbers that today's hardware can't keep up with. An exponential increase in load is way beyond the growth of Moore's law.<br><br>In order to keep their service stable they will have to make changes to the base functionality or impose limitations on maximum followers or following.<br><br>Facebook capped at 5,000. Since they offer push services, I wonder if this was a calculated decision based on scale. I don't think so. They are, or will be, hitting numbers that today's hardware can't keep up with. An exponential increase in load is way beyond the growth of Moore's law.

In order to keep their service stable they will have to make changes to the base functionality or impose limitations on maximum followers or following.

Facebook capped at 5,000. Since they offer push services, I wonder if this was a calculated decision based on scale.

]]> By: TimWalker http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-2882 TimWalker Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:38:15 +0000 http://solyoung.com/?p=209#comment-2882 Very interesting. Wish I were more tech-savvy to understand the hardware implications of all of this. At the very least, though -- and even if your numbers are back-of-the-envelope style -- it explains much better for this tech neophyte why "Just add more servers" isn't necessarily the solution.<br><br>Can they get around these architecture issues, do you think? Very interesting. Wish I were more tech-savvy to understand the hardware implications of all of this. At the very least, though — and even if your numbers are back-of-the-envelope style — it explains much better for this tech neophyte why “Just add more servers” isn't necessarily the solution.

Can they get around these architecture issues, do you think?

]]> By: Sol Young http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-2492 Sol Young Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:08:01 +0000 http://solyoung.com/?p=209#comment-2492 I don't think so. They are, or will be, hitting numbers that today's hardware can't keep up with. An exponential increase in load is way beyond the growth of Moore's law.<br><br>In order to keep their service stable they will have to make changes to the base functionality or impose limitations on maximum followers or following.<br><br>Facebook capped at 5,000. Since they offer push services, I wonder if this was a calculated decision based on scale. I don't think so. They are, or will be, hitting numbers that today's hardware can't keep up with. An exponential increase in load is way beyond the growth of Moore's law.

In order to keep their service stable they will have to make changes to the base functionality or impose limitations on maximum followers or following.

Facebook capped at 5,000. Since they offer push services, I wonder if this was a calculated decision based on scale.

]]> By: TimWalker http://solyoung.com/2008/06/27/twitters-one-to-many-scaling-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-2491 TimWalker Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:38:15 +0000 http://solyoung.com/?p=209#comment-2491 Very interesting. Wish I were more tech-savvy to understand the hardware implications of all of this. At the very least, though -- and even if your numbers are back-of-the-envelope style -- it explains much better for this tech neophyte why "Just add more servers" isn't necessarily the solution.<br><br>Can they get around these architecture issues, do you think? Very interesting. Wish I were more tech-savvy to understand the hardware implications of all of this. At the very least, though — and even if your numbers are back-of-the-envelope style — it explains much better for this tech neophyte why “Just add more servers” isn't necessarily the solution.

Can they get around these architecture issues, do you think?

]]>