Originally posted by xeekei
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Spotify Switches From Debian To Ubuntu
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by jimbohale View PostI don't think they use Bittorrent. Just because it's p2p doesn't mean it's bittorrent. Additionally, they have the p2p network just in case they need it. So, for example, if you listen to a song it attempts to download and cache it, and if someone else listens to the same song after you there is a chance that they will download portions of that file from you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by stevenc View PostWhy do they need 5000 servers anyway? Netflix streams video, accounting for more than half the Internet traffic in the US at peak times, from only 50 servers or so. FreeBSD, just saying.
In reality, Netflix has thousands of VMs in multiple Amazon EC2 zones. On top of that, they install local cache servers at ISPs around the world.
Mike.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimbohale View PostI don't think they use Bittorrent. Just because it's p2p doesn't mean it's bittorrent. Additionally, they have the p2p network just in case they need it. So, for example, if you listen to a song it attempts to download and cache it, and if someone else listens to the same song after you there is a chance that they will download portions of that file from you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostBoth. They were already using systemd, and I am talking about the fact that Debian offers no commercial support.
It is apparent that they were already considering transitioning to Ubuntu at the time of Spotify's infrastructure team's comment to the bug report (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078301).Last edited by eidolon; 17 July 2014, 11:10 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by xeekei View PostWhy wouldn't they use bittorrent if it does exactly what they need? Why create their own thing? Especially since Spotify's founder and CEO, Daniel Ek, was briefly the CEO of the company behind ?Torrent in the past.
Ultimately I know that spotify uses my bandwidth and I don't care. It doesn't use much (in fact it very rarely uses any at all).Last edited by jimbohale; 17 July 2014, 11:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ownagefool View PostI don't really think these type of installs need LTS. Stable is old enough when it comes out, you get about 2-3 years then you get about another year to migrate away.
Comment
-
Originally posted by miquels View PostApparently Netflix does "several terabits/sec" in the USA. Let's say 5 Tb/s. That's 5000 gigabit/s. So each server would be sending out 100 gigabit/s. That's really impressive for an Amazon VM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisb View PostLTS is not just about stable software versions. One of the problems with using Debian stable in a business environment is that Debian does not do hardware enablement for stable releases. Imagine that a company procures a new model of servers that have some recent hardware that is not supported by Debian stable.. Now you have a problem. There are workarounds, like building your own install ISOs with back ported kernels, but then you have to assign an employee to do that work. And you have to assign an employee the job of tracking security updates for your back ported kernels. And back porting fixes for your installer ISO. So, it is all possible, but it is a hard sell against "let's just use Ubuntu and let them work about all of that stuff".
I dunno, I'm making a rather big assumption that their environment is resonably automated and uniform though, could be totally wrong.
Comment
Comment