I would expect 800 users to fit on a single Postgres or even SQLite box
You can serve thousands of concurrent users on less-than-laptop resources -- we do. If you get a big dedicated server you can serve more concurrent users than you'll likely ever have customers. Modern relational databases are just very good.
StackOverflow's stack (https://stackexchange.com/performance) is 4 huge Postgres servers. They probably cost less than our AWS bill for a couple months, which makes me jealous. Postgres scales.
StackOverflow's stack (https://stackexchange.com/performance) is 4 huge Postgres servers. They probably cost less than our AWS bill for a couple months, which makes me jealous. Postgres scales.
Yeah, because everything is actually served from their caches because they're extremely read heavy.
I guarantee that whatever traffic is getting past their cache is still 100x higher than 90% of startups.. People really do try to run before they can walk.
Comments
You can serve thousands of concurrent users on less-than-laptop resources -- we do. If you get a big dedicated server you can serve more concurrent users than you'll likely ever have customers. Modern relational databases are just very good.
StackOverflow's stack (https://stackexchange.com/performance) is 4 huge Postgres servers. They probably cost less than our AWS bill for a couple months, which makes me jealous. Postgres scales.
AFAIK they use MSSQL, not postgres. And they only use one (another is a replicated hot spare) for Stackoverflow.
Yeah, because everything is actually served from their caches because they're extremely read heavy.
They use SQL Server
2016 https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/02/17/stack-overflow-the-arc...
2022 https://hanselminutes.com/847/engineering-stack-overflow-wit...
1.5 TB RAM
I guarantee that whatever traffic is getting past their cache is still 100x higher than 90% of startups.. People really do try to run before they can walk.