alt Hacker NewsNot criticizing the core idea, which is sound (don't waste ressource overengineering at the beginning, evolve your architecture to match your actual scale as you grow), but the “number of users” figures in this post are completely nonsensical. You ought to multiply them by 100 (if you're being conservative) or even 1000 (depending on the consumption pattern for the user).
Modern hardware is fast, if you cannot fit more than 100 users (not even 100 concurrent users) on a single $50/month server, you're doing something very very wrong.
Even repurposed 10 years old fairphone[1] can handle more than that.
[1]: https://far.computer
Replies
Counting in users is just nonsensical. Is it total registered users? Users per <time interval>? Sessions that need to go in the session store? Concurrent requests?
Then there's the implementation language category. interpreted, JITed vs. AOT.
And of course the workload matters a lot. Simple CRUD application vs. compute-heavy or serving lots of media, ...
Together those factors can make like 6+ OOMs difference.
Agreed, the numbers were shockingly low.
Amazing to see my little phone pop up randomly on hacker news :D
Thank you stranger.
You and another person made this point _but_ I’d encourage you to look at what $50/mo gets you on AWS all in. In reality it will get you a t4g.small plus 200GB of (very slow) storage. Honestly they start to chug at 500 or so users in my experience.