• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    And infinitely lower reliability because you can’t have failovers (well you can, but people that run everything in the same host, won’t). It’s fine for something non critical, but I wouldn’t do it with anything that pays the bills.

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      I work for a company that has operated like this for 20 years. The system goes down sometimes, but we can fix it in less than an hour. At worst the users get a longer coffee break.

      A single click in the software can often generate 500 SQL queries, so if you go from 0.05 ms to 1 ms latency you add half a second to clicks in the UI and that would piss our users off.

      Definitely not saying this is the best way to operate at all times. But SQL has a huge problem with false dependencies between queries and API:s that make it very difficult to pipeline queries, so my experience has been that I/O-bound applications easily become extremely sensitive to latency.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m going to guess quite a people here work on businesses where “sometimes breaks, but fixed in less than an hour” isn’t good enough for reliability.

          • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Most businesses dont require that kind of uptime though. If i killed or servers for a couple of hours between 02:00 and 04:00 every night probably nobody would notice for at least a year if it wasn’t for the alerts we’d get.