the ebgames website in australia uses 1440 CPUs and went down

>>57536924
Why does this look so unoptimized?

Each CPU can't handle 5200 requests? What the fuck. Seems like their bottleneck isn't CPU utilization but probably some I/O from other hardware. Either SSD/NIC or something else preventing optimized usage of servers.

>>57536924
you could have a thousand cray supercomputers and it wouldn't really matter that much if your server side was really poorly designed and implemented.

EB games isn't a tech company. they probably have a relatively ragtag group of software devs who made and continue to maintain the site. if they fired all those people and hired some google/facebook-tier software developers, then they would probably be able to put up a site that handled much more traffic a little better.

if you want an analogy, imagine a fat person trying to lose weight. ideally, he should do diet and exercise. but, if we're being honest, diet is like 60-80% of the equation. exercise is important, but if you're guzzling sodas and cheeseburgers, no combination or amount of exercise will compensate for your diet.

EB games needed to put their site on a diet, and instead they spent a lot of time lifting weights and shit.

>>57536967
or maybe their website backend is written in nodejs and they fell for the "ADD MORE CORES" meme

>>57536924

http://stackexchange.com/performance

Yep, I can easily see how you couldn't manage with that much hardware.

>>57536968
>google/facebook-tier software developers

EB games is not looking to increase their server bill by 300% by using on-demand elastic™ scalabe™ cloud computing™ and change design languages seasonally while running a 20mb web page written entirely in javascript to the extent that disabling js gets you a blank page. I imagine they also prefer to save money by not chasing fads and require more manpower to keep their site updated to latest butttsex v.1.23.52.34 framework every week.

>>57537011
I'd imagine they lose thousands to hundreds of thousands from not having their site working. Not to mention they could cut down on the CPU hardware easily to half that size if their software was optimized properly

>>57536924
Stupid normies, buying a raspberry pi inside a plastic case that can only run 30 games

>>57536924
>each with 32 CPUs
You mean each with 32 cores, unless they are 16 core xeons with hyperthreading, in which case you mean 32 threads.

>>57536967
>Each CPU can't handle 5200 requests?
The best part is that they aren't even talking about concurrent requests.
It was 500,000 page views for an entire Tuesday, 7,500,000 page views for the entire day up to the point the site died.

4chan dealt with more than that when it was running on Mac Minis.

>>57536924
wow, they must be running their site on nodejs, asp or some similarly slow shit

>>57536967
>Each CPU can't handle 5200 requests? What the fuck

Niggers are probably running Apache.

200 thread limit and 1 thrad per active request, nigger. NGINX for life.

>>57537005

Thanks anon, I have a massive erection for infographics.

>>57537124
Ur dum, just saiyan. Infographs are for stupid people who want to feel smart about themselves.

To fix this, read raw data.

>>57537139
>Ur dum, just saiyan.

Neck yourself

>>57537139

>To fix this, read raw data.

So the same fucking data in a different format? Fuck off you tryhard faggot, go back to fixing your Arch install.

>>57536967
They were running on 8095

>>57537147
>infographs are same as raw data
Stop. It hurts.

>>57537173
infographs of the raw data, are raw data.

>>57537011
when i said "google/facebook-tier" i wasn't saying "get someone who's obsessed with fads". i was saying "get a person for whom companies compete to hire" as opposed to some dumbass.

>>57536979
a node.js server would easily be able to handle this kind of load if it was implemented with some skill. you're looking at lazy javascript developers who stand up shitty websites with node.js because it's permissive of that sort of crap, and blaming node.js for it. it's the developer's fault.

>>57536924
This just in:
Fads come and go while distribution networks still haven't learned to deal with massive spikes in demand.

Were you surprised when the same thing happened to pokemon go servers? Were you surprised when ticketmaster couldn't handle various Metallica and ac/dc concerts? And so on and so forth. They build their infrastructure to handle normal load plus so and so much, it's hardly shocking that their website goes down when you exceed that by a massive margin.

>>57537207
>This just in:
>Fads come and go while distribution networks still haven't learned to deal with massive spikes in demand.
woah nignog, don't look at EB games and conclude that they adopted any of the tools that people have developed and currently use to deal with demand.

stop pretending that EB games has a competent team running their website. they sell video games.

>>57537073
4chan never ran on mac minis
That was just a joke from Chris

>>57537243
Fine, the Dells then.

>>57537224
>nignog
Stop projecting.

They designed their website to meet their needs. For that, it was perfectly sufficient until a fad cones along and increases demand way beyond what they had ever experienced before. This has happened before but does that mean that every service on the planet should spend more money on it than they would ordinarily need to?

>>57537207

>comparing ebgames australia to pokemon go

stop

>>57537243
it wasn't a joke. in the early days it was a mac mini. they obviously upgraded since then but 4chan was a real mess at first.

never underestimate how shitty your stack can be while still being able to stand up a website. especially back in the halcyon days when traffic was relatively low. like you could refresh /b/ every second or two and the front page wasn't *completely* new.

>>57536924
>45 servers
>Each with 32 CPUs
Cores/vCPUs maybe. Important distinction.

I assume this means they have 4x eight core xeons in each four socket server board. If they have forty fucking five of those they'd easily handle 7,500,000 page views on a normal day unless their infrastructure was made by Pajeet Singh with a theoretical degree.

>>57537253
if anything, a video game website should expect insane spikes more than other sites. that's exactly the kind of community that would hammer a website all at once to get a high profile game or console.

another example of a site that should expect spikes in traffic would be a concert/music festival site. if sites like these don't anticipate enormous spikes in traffic, they're just being irresponsible idiots.

i would understand if EB games said something like "we usually get 500k requests per day *but our site is capable of handling up to 3M requests per hour in the event of a spike in traffic*; this time even our highest expectations were totally blown out of the water and we got more than 7.5M requests".

in their letter there's no indication that they designed the site to be capable for more than a typical tuesday afternoon's volume of traffic.

>>57537270
like i said earlier; there's diet and then there's exercise. they invested in the exercise but their diet was shit and they did nothing about it.

if your code is garbage, you can run 45 servers with 35 CPUs on each one and it'll crash with 7.5M requests in a day. that's horse shit performance. it's not the server's fault. it's not the fault of the users. it's just horse shit code. with that many servers it could have been possible to handle 7.5M requests per second. it would be really ambitious, but that's the order of magnitude of how shitty their code/stack was.

>>57537270
it probably was made by pajeet, that's the only reason it could be so unoptimized and resource-heavy

>>57537347
i've seen so many brogrammers get overly excited about some retarded new fad without any real consideration about stuff like performance that i would be more inclined to believe that the team that made this site consisted mostly of douchey silicon valley hipster wannabes. like they would have bought hoodies that looked like the one mark zuckerberg wears.

maybe we can find the guys that work at EB games in web development stuff. if you find pajeets, you'll win. if i find bro-y looking dudes, i'll win.

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-16 at 2.50.45 AM.png (197KB, 154x2196px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 154x2196px

>>57537364
i'm not seeing many pajeets, but my search query might not have gotten the right group. but i'm seeing a "senior technology manager at EB Games" (guy at the top), so i suspect i'm at least capturing some people.

the 4th from the bottom looks a little like a pajeet. not sure.

>>57537401
>>57537364
I don't know what went wrong with modern web dev, but seems like these days people just write extremely bloated and inefficient client- and server-side code. also, why they often insist on writing the entire front-end in JS is beyond me.

>>57537421
there are some advantages, but we're in this phase where people are working out the right use cases for these tools. like it was only a few years ago that we realized to use static HTML files compiled in advance. before that people would run whole wordpress stacks just to host a blog. that shit was fucking crazy in hindsight, but a LOT of people ran (and continue to run!) blogs and shit that would be 1) much more secure, and 2) MUUUUUCH easier and cheaper to maintain if they just made it all static and pushed any changes to a repo or something.

i'm not really upbeat about the fact that we're all going nuts exploring really shitty frameworks and libraries right now, but i realize that the ideation phase of a project is usually 90% bad ideas, and i'm assuming that at a macro level we're in that ideation phase. we can't be TOO critical of bad ideas, because occasionally a bad idea sparks a really great idea — an idea so good that it makes suffering a few shitty ideas worth it.

>>57537284
>in their letter there's no indication that they designed the site to be capable for more than a typical tuesday afternoon's volume of traffic.
Wait, so you assume that their website is only built for a lazy Tuesday afternoon just because they didn't explicitly state otherwise? That's some nigger tier logic. That's a laughably stupid assumption.

You're right in that they didn't explicitly state what their site is good for. They probably don't know themselves beyond that it has been more than adequate for all previous events.
>another example of a site that should expect spikes in traffic would be a concert/music festival site. if sites like these don't anticipate enormous spikes in traffic, they're just being irresponsible idiots.
Again, you're making a ton of assumptions here. I also think that you completely fail to grasp the scale of these events. With regards to the ticketmaster events, there are one very fun examples of this. The ac/dc black ice concert brought down the Irish servers because more than half the population of Ireland were making requests within twenty minutes. This might seem absurd but apparently there many requests from Britain, Germany and the rest of the EU. I find it hilarious that you expect any service to handle such a spike. I also find it hilarious that you think the requests were spread over the entire day from one PR statement.

In summary, stop being a nigger, pajeet.

>>57537421
>why they often insist on writing the entire front-end in JS is beyond me.

Webdevelopers have been systematically tacking on new shit to their profession for more than a decade now. Make it intentionally hard so a high schooler/pajeet can't figure it out easily and not threaten your sorry ass job.

That plus the "build a prototype first, performance later hurrr", "javascript best script" echo chambers.

>>57537508
>That's some nigger tier logic.
nigger tier logic is building a website without sufficiently anticipating an event in the future that's likely to happen; that is, a bunch of rabid fans hammering their site in anticipation of a game/console launch.

i didn't bother to read the rest of your post because it looks at first glance like an insane diarrheal stream of a rant.

>>57536924
>45 servers with 32 CPUs each
>not being able to handle 7,500,000 page views over a WHOLE FUCKING DAY
what the actual fuck

>>57537684
what's crazy is the guy in this thread very earnestly trying to defend them for this.

>>57536924
>went down because of the nes mini

maybe it was a simple DDOS

>>57537773
maybe it was aliums

>>57537650
>without sufficiently anticipating an event in the future that's likely to happen
They probably did. The wild success that is the mini NES went way beyond anyone's expectations.
>i didn't bother to read the rest of your post because it looks at first glance like an insane diarrheal stream of a rant.
Oh but you did, didn't you? That's why you're so mad. You just don't have a rebuttal. You haven't actually addressed any of my points, you just completely dodged them like the pajeet you are.

As a sidenote, first world keyboards come with thus nifty little button called "shift". It lets you capitalise letters. You can get one fron a charity organisation in your third world shithole if you're lucky.

I did not expect this NES Mini bullshit to take off. I thought Pokemon Go was shit and no one would play it either. Guess I'm fucking retarded.

>>57537815
>I did not expect this NES Mini bullshit to take off.
not really about taking off, but instead limiting supply to make the product seem really fucking hot so everyone talks about it/ wants it.

>>57537799
>Oh but you did, didn't you?
i'm really sorry to disappoint you, but no. go back and glance at it and tell me it doesn't look like a stream of consciousness.

you need help. get back on your meds. take a nap. go for a walk. shoot up a school. do whatever people with your disorder do to get right.

>>57537843 here
also to >>57537799
>went way beyond anyone's expectations
well, not anyone's. i haven't heard about any other site having gone down around the same time. so certainly it went way beyond EB games's expectations, but that's kind of the whole fucking point — they didn't anticipate it.

and even if they had, what were they going to do? buy a hundred more servers?

>>57537862
>Argument from ignorance
Well that sure is convincing. Also, you don't need to tell anyone that you are who you are, your writing style is so distinct that you might as well be using a trip, pajeet.

>>57537828
Or you know, even nintendo wasn't expecting many people to buy their bullshit again

>>57537828
If that was really the case then scalping wouldn't be working so well.

>>57537988
You mean the same way apple seems to sell out of iphones ?

a giant company like that can easily make enough products to satisfy initial demand.

>>57537965
>>Argument from ignorance
>Well that sure is convincing.
i'm just not assuming something exists unless i know of evidence of it. if you have some evidence that some other sites went down, then by all means present it.

but i'm not just going to take it on faith that other sites must've gone down too, as you're apparently willing to do.

also not sure why you're so obsessed with pajeets. mind taking a picture of the back of your hand, rajesh?

>>57538024
last i heard apple had to rent out basically every factory it could to get them to manufacture iPhones fast enough. this isn't de beers; they're setting a price in advance and generally sticking to it. turning people away for weeks and weeks fundamentally isn't good for business. i don't care how good you think the buzz of false scarcity is, it's not better than making a sale on a $700 device that probably costs 30% of that to make (if that).

>>57538047
my argument is that every year since the iphone launch apple has not been able to keep up with the initial demand.

You would think that after the first few times they would learn to add extra capacity for the first few months.

Even now with their dip in sales they still can't keep up with demand.