How We Found 7 TiB of Memory Just Sitting Around

(render.com)

205 points anurag | 2 comments | 30 Oct 25 18:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

Show context

Aeolun ◴[01 Nov 25 02:54 UTC] No.45778883[source]▶

I read this and I have to wonder, did anyone ever think it was reasonable that a cluster that apparently needed only 120gb of memory was consuming 1.2TB just for logging (or whatever vector does)

replies(4): >>45779398 #>>45779624 #>>45779726 #>>45780688 #

1. fock ◴[01 Nov 25 06:53 UTC] No.45779726[source]▶

>>45778883 #

we have on-prem with heavy spikes (our batch workload can utilize the 20TB of memory in the cluster easily) and we just don't care much and add 10% every year to the hardware requested. Compared to employing people or paying other vendors (relational databases with many TB-sized tables...) this is just irrelevant.

Sadly devs are incentivized by that and going towards the cloud might be a fun story. Given the environment I hope they scrap the effort sooner rather than later, buy some Oxide systems for the people who need to iterate faster than the usual process of getting a VM and replace/reuse the 10% of the company occupied with the cloud (mind you: no real workload runs there yet...) to actually improve local processes...

replies(1): >>45783714 #

2. g-mork ◴[01 Nov 25 17:52 UTC] No.45783714[source]▶

>>45779726 (TP) #

Somewhat unrelated, but you just tied wasteful software design to high it salaries, and also suggest a reason why Russian programmers might also seem to on the whole be far more effective than we are

I wonder if msft simply cut dev salaries by 50% in the 90s, would it have had any measurable effect on windows quality by today

↑