Slashdot Log In
Scaling Facebook To 140 Million Users
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:02 AM
from the that's-a-lotta-load dept.
from the that's-a-lotta-load dept.
1sockchuck writes "Facebook now has 140 million users, and in recent weeks has been adding 600,000 new users a day. To keep pace with that growth, the Facebook engineering team has been tweaking its use of memcached, and says it can now handle 200,000 UDP requests per second. Facebook has detailed its refinements to memcached, which it hopes will be included in the official memcached repository. For now, their changes have been released to github."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I think it's kind of cool that they are putting back, so to speak. If they can use that tweak, so can everyone else. If your requirements all fit on one host server, then that server might now be able to do much more. Perhaps the next changes should be to allow a setting that penalizes retail advertisements by adding some arbitrary delay of greater than 10 seconds?
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Funny)
I know what you mean, but I don't have that trouble much. Using FF with plugins I don't see much advertising at all. Sometimes, when I'm feeling nostalgic, I'll surf using the SeaMonkey browser because I left it default bare. That way I can see all those ads from doubleclick et al if I want to.
Sad but true, I don't get nostalgic much :-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was amazed at how many sites i regularly frequent that are now plastered in ads and horrible to use.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I did my bit a while ago by closing my Facebook account. If you care about Facebook, vote with your, um, mouse !
Support Facebook ! Close your account !
[Unintelligible] Facebook [Unintelligible] (Score:3, Funny)
Re:[Unintelligible] Facebook [Unintelligible] (Score:5, Funny)
You're wrong, that's five word.
Parent
Re:[Unintelligible] Facebook [Unintelligible] (Score:4, Funny)
If you want to be *quite* technical (and I think it's quite hilarious we're being modded "informative" and "insightful"), the string "140 millions" would be broken into only four words in correct English: One hundred forty millions.
I presume the "five words" comes from the usual way to say it, one hundred and forty millions, which is technically incorrect as the "and" should refer to the decimal point, as in thirty-two and five one-hundredths.
I am unsure about the hyphen between one and hundred, though...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Impressive (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty impressive that Facebook has been able to grow so quickly and handle so much traffic. Their down time has been pretty insignificant related to the sheer number of requests that blow through their servers every day.
There's probably a thing or two that can be learned from their developers and IT folks. I just wish I knew more about the whole underlying structure so I could appreciate exactly what they've done.
... And Yet Very Lacking From a Security Angle (Score:2, Interesting)
It's pretty impressive that Facebook has been able to grow so quickly and handle so much traffic. Their down time has been pretty insignificant related to the sheer number of requests that blow through their servers every day.
There's probably a thing or two that can be learned from their developers and IT folks. I just wish I knew more about the whole underlying structure so I could appreciate exactly what they've done.
Well, call me cynical but the things that interest me about Facebook are what has gone wrong. Like hackers selling account details for pennies [dailymail.co.uk]. This is the end result:
The scam works by a victim clicking on a spam link that appears to be coming from one of their Facebook friends or someone in their address book which lodges spyware in their machine. This then records all the information, including passwords, when they log in to various sites.
The passwords can then be sent on to money-laundering gangs who use them to infiltrate users' bank accounts.
While this is true of any other networking site, I think this severe security issue needs to be address successfully one of these days.
All I've seen Facebook do to remedy this is explain how to clean it off your computer [facebook.com].
I fear for the millions of homes where a kid logs onto Facebook, gets mail from Timmy. Clicks the link, finds n
That is *not* a Facebook problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a standard trojan with an unusual delivery method of using fake Facebook profiles run by trojan bots. I can't see how this is Facebook's problem any more than it's your email program's fault that you clicked on a dodgy link without checking it.
Parent
Re:... And Yet Very Lacking From a Security Angle (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be addressed... because it's not a security issue with the site. It's an issue that the user needs to be trained on how to spot, and good luck getting that to happen.
I mean, come on, banks have the "problem" you described, and most banks aren't what we'd call insecure.
Parent
Re:... And Yet Very Lacking From a Security Angle (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook would do well to proactively encourage users to prevent such attacks by securing their systems. For example, by installing this simple application, you can ensure that your computer will never fall victim to malware:
http://not-malware.i-promise.org/magic-bullet.htm [i-promise.org]
Just enable scripts and click OK whenever it tells you to. It's that easy.
Now, if /. allowed me to post the (fake) link above, how are they any more at fault than facebook is for allowing potentially dodgy links to be shared via their service? They even went the extra step of helping users remove the malware from their PCs. I'd imagine that most conduits for malicious links (IM, social networking, e-mail, online forums, etc) wouldn't have even gone that far. Their users were being targeted and exploited, so they helped them avoid being taken advantage of - Good on 'em.
Were I malicious, I could grab the e-mail address you share in your title line, look through your /. 'friends' list for other accounts with posted addresses, and e-mail you a malicious link "From" one of them. How would that be different?
Parent
Re:... And Yet Very Lacking From a Security Angle (Score:5, Funny)
I really need that application. I get so many viruses.
Parent
Re:... And Yet Very Lacking From a Security Angle (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds pretty proactive to me
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it's that time of the year... (Score:2, Funny)
...I thought I should make a Christmas carol about what we see on the net everyday.
Smashing through the door, comes Firefox three browsing sites we go laughing at IE all the way ha ha ha!
Steve Ballmer yells on youtube, making children cry. Oh what fun it is to see that stupid Windows guy. Hey!
Jingle bells Digg smells Slashdot all the way! Oh what fun it is to post on facebook every day, yay!
Pretty impressive operation (Score:5, Interesting)
at least for me being a 38yo undergrad.
We had one of their engineers give a talk a couple of weeks ago. The most recent number he had was 120 million members (who've logged on in the last 30 days) and over 65 billion page views per month. And they do it with 200 or so engineers.
I was fully expecting (being interested primarily in verifiable systems and fp) to be annoyed by this talk, but they have some pretty interesting problems to solve over there. The fact that they're doing it with OSS, and giving back to boot, really made my day.
Re:Pretty impressive operation (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, but if they could do it with Windows, now that would be a challenge!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be hotmail all over again, but even stupider.
Blaming Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
We discovered that under load on Linux, UDP performance was downright horrible. This is caused by considerable lock contention on the UDP socket lock when transmitting through a single socket from multiple threads. Fixing the kernel by breaking up the lock is not easy. Instead, we used separate UDP sockets for transmitting replies (with one of these reply sockets per thread). With this change, we were able to deploy UDP without compromising performance on the backend.
I bolded the quote to show what their real problem was. They had a shit load of threads trying to use a single socket and of course there was huge overhead involved due to the mutex lock (Semaphore on kernel side) on a shared resource (the socket). So they blame Linux instead of them selves for such a half-ass implementation of sending out packets from multiple threads with a single socket. They would have gotten the same exact result if they tried it with a single TCP connection socket and attempted to have multiple threads firing off packets with that. If you want multiple threads sending out packets use multiple sockets... Wow what a concept!
Sorry for my ranting, but it just pisses me off when moron programmers blame the operating system for their own stupidity.
Anyway, haven't nearly all MMOs gone with using UDP internally of the game cluster network and TCP externally to reduce latency and network overhead? So this is nothing new to me.
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is just downright disingenuous and wrong. UDP performance in general on Linux is comparable or better than other Operating Systems. What he found out is that accessing a single UDP socket on Linux requires a lock, and that when trying to share that lock over multiple threads you have a performance issue. Welcome to intro level operating systems.
This has nothing to do with UDP performance, which I define as either throughput or in some cases packets per second. He then goes on to imply that he worked around some issues in Linux, when in actuality he attacked the problem from the wrong angle and through trial and error found the obvious solution. Why would you even think to use the same socket in a connectionless protocol like UDP in the first place?
I do agree that in general the article was written in more or less praise of Linux, but reading that sentence makes my blood boil.
Parent
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too often the people that are left to explain the problem in detail to the press are not the engineers that worked on the solution for that problem. If we had a discussion with one of them, we would hear a totally different story!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you're uninformed on multiple levels with this post.
1. "They" didn't write memcached. Livejournal did, and then they open sourced it. "They" didn't provide a half-assed implementation. They pushed a piece of open source software further than it had before, and found problems.
2. If you'd read the next sentence right after your bold line, you'd notice they were talking about a kernel lock. Not a lock in memcached. Thats a totally valid reason to blame linux.
If you bothered to actually spend some t
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:4, Informative)
2. If you'd read the next sentence right after your bold line, you'd notice they were talking about a kernel lock. Not a lock in memcached. Thats a totally valid reason to blame linux.
How do you hope to architect a fix for this? Thought I don't know the specifics, they said that they were using the same UDP socket to transmit from multiple threads. That means you have one kernel space data structure across the entire UDP/IP stack being shared by multiple threads. Therefore you need a lock around updates to that data structure.
Until we see some atomic sendto() operations this is not going to change.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then there was this:
Likewise, I thought irqbalance [irqbalance.org] already handles this? It's fairly commonly installed in 64-bit distros, probably most others by now. Not to mention you could go to TOE for the machines you have the most
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] So they blame Linux instead of them selves for such a half-ass implementation of sending out packets from multiple threads with a single socket.[...]
Sorry for my ranting, but it just pisses me off when moron programmers blame the operating system for their own stupidity.
The point is that it wasn't their own stupidity. They took someone's open source project and improved it so it could better handle high loads. I don't see them blaming Linux, I see them recognising the limitations of the system they are using and coming up with a solution and then sharing it. Normally, this is cause to say "Yay! Open source!" rather than calling them "moron programmers".
Parent
Re:Blaming Linux... (Score:4, Informative)
Mutexes aren't always slow. In the uncontended case they don't require a system call (although they do require an atomic operation which involves some inter-processor signalling).
Lockless algorithms are generally harder to get right, from what I've seen. It's not just locking the cpus for a cycle, but you also need to worry about using memory barriers (generally written in assembly) to enforce correct visibility across all cpus in the system.
There are guys on comp.programming.threads that spend a *lot* of time trying to perfect them, and there are often subtle errors that pop up later on. Given the number of problems that regular lock-based algorithms cause, I'd only use lockless if it's absolutely necessary.
Parent
"PHP Doesn't Scale" (Score:5, Interesting)
Like or hate social networking. Facebook has gone a long way in showing how well PHP can be made to scale. They also contribute quite a bit back to the PHP project and PHP related projects.
5 years ago if anyone came along saying they were going to build a website in PHP ./ would be up in arms calling them idiots of all sorts and saying they NEED to go with compiled C or Perl.
Re:"PHP Doesn't Scale" (Score:4, Interesting)
PHP is good for all types of projects. It's the use of PHP that makes the difference. If you write clear, intelligent and documented code it runs fine. It's even better if you use good function design and definitions. It's plenty fast too and can be pre-compiled or cached. It's also good at scaling because the programmer only has minimal interaction with threading, locking and similar issues and PHP leaves most of it over to the libraries (Apache, IIS, MySQL).
Programming in PHP is a lot like programming in Java: you have a bad developer and your code will run as slow as hell and will be difficult to maintain. Coding is simple and the optimization is minimal because it's a quite high level language. There are of course a lot of inherited problems in PHP (magic quotes and safe mode to start off with) but with PHP5 and PHP6 they are slowly being phased out. But if you do it well, you can write very secure and fast applications in PHP.
Parent
They built a tuple store. (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon and Google faced similar problems, and dealt with them in ways that are roughly equivalent - by adding a tuple store to their system.
If the data behind your web site is mostly accessed via one primary key, a tuple store, something that stores name/value pairs, beats a general-purpose relational database. Both Amazon and Google have such a mechanism in their "cloud" systems. Facebook has a somewhat low-rent solution; they're front-ending MySQL with a tuple store cache. This only works if all the queries contain some ID that has to match exactly, like user ID. Effectively, instead of one big database, the problem consists of a large number of tiny databases, all somewhat independent. Problems like that can be scaled up without much trouble.
Tuple stores distribute nicely - you can spread them over as many machines as you want, just by cutting up the keyspace into conveniently sized shards. There are distributed relational DBMS systems, but they have to be able to do inter-machine joins, which is a hard problem. (That's what you pay the big bucks to Oracle for.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right about the key space splits, there's an addon to memcached called libketama that uses consistent hashing to do exactly that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I understand the grand-parent post and this space in general correctly, think things like BigTable [google.com] at google or open-source implementations like Hypertable [hypertable.org] or HBase [apache.org].
Upgrading.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I have been wondering for a while... (Score:5, Informative)
Myspace used to run on cold fusion but switched to .NET. facebook runs on LAMP, though they have a customized MySQL and a customized linux kernel with support for the hierarchial page pinning algorithm.
Parent
Re:I have been wondering for a while... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Now I get the mundane details of everyone's life, such as "Getting a haircut, yea!" on the rare occasions I check it. At least people can't bug me to be on it anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you can delete your account... not sure if Facebook purges the data from their servers, but it shouldn't be accessible to anyone else after you delete your profile.
You can also set it so that only certain groups of people (or no one at all) can see your profile, customizable on an item-by-item basis (including various things like phone, address, profile picture, status, birthday, birth year, friends list, bio, wall posts, videos, pictures) and/or comment on your wall, pictures/videos, or send you messa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Advertising, I assume.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
"Your business sound more important with VmWare!"
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Source: http://frro.net/blog/2008/04/26/just-how-big-is-facebooks-infrastructure/ [frro.net]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From hardware perspective, Facebook uses 10,000 web servers and 1800 database servers to handle the massive traffic.
That's funny because the Russian Business Network uses a 250,000 strong zombie botnet to create the Facebook accounts and massive traffic...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they know about you can fill a warehouse.
What they know about you is only what you tell them.
Yes, (Score:4, Insightful)
Being able to find old friends you haven't been able to contact in years.
Having a central pull information spot rather than the push model of spaming every email address you have with pics of the new baby, house, car, toaster.
A central and standardized organization spot for arranging informal gatherings with friends, like parties.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to a poster further up, the figure is based on the number of users that have logged in in the last 30 days. While that number will still be a bit high it shouldn't be awful.