

Digg Database Architecture - lpgauth
http://blog.digg.com/?p=213

======
thorax
Actually sounded a bit evasive/defensive for some reason. I'm not exactly sure
why, but I'm at least glad they talked more about this.

~~~
axod
That's what I thought...

"Stop asking how many db servers we have, we have an automated process to make
sure we have enough. I don't know how many that is."

------
josefresco
Let's discuss the value of releasing information like this besides the usual
intellectual curiosity?

Does this sharing help the Digg community grow stronger or larger? Or is this
meant for potential investors to show they are 'alive and well' behind the
curtain?

~~~
ojbyrne
I think it's a blog post. Sometimes just answering a common question is enough
justification for that. But it also probably contributes to both of your
points, and gives employees a feeling of contributing to the public face of
the company.

------
axod
Is it just me that thinks it a bit wrong that they don't know/care how many db
servers they run? If I was running something like that I'd want to know that
number.

~~~
mtw
at their level, it's like you worrying how many meg your apache server is
taking. I understood in the post that they have an auto-scaling tool that
starts, mounts and ends (when appropriate) databases servers

~~~
jwilliams
I've worked in some environments with pretty massive databases... Every one
has known how many servers they have (and the overall capacity). Most have
some pretty serious capacity measurement, monitoring and planning methods.

So yeah, I still find it a bit odd. Each to their own I guess.

------
trezor
So they have master servers and replication. Not to mention they've covered up
for MySQLs lack of ability to kill heavy queries automatically by making some
hacky perl-script.

Something tells me using MySQL didn't really help them much, as all serious
DBs out there have this shit covered by default.

In fact _everything_ mentioned in this article is stuff I would have with SQL
Server Standard Edition, and that's stuff that's been around at least since
2000.

Disclaimer: I'm somewhat of a DB-purist and I hate seeing things like this
encouraged or praised, when I consider this reinventing a old, old wheel for
the millionth time.

~~~
notauser
Just curious, but how many really high volume websites do run on MSSQL?

MySQL might not be all singing and all dancing but being able to handle load
by throwing free boxes at it must be nice, and using MSSQL server in an
environment where you don't even know how many databases you have could be
somewhat expensive.

