> The twitter firehose is usually bellow 50MB/s
That's a single copy of all tweets. Not fanning out to up to 100 million inboxes. Completely different problems.
You keep citing raw hardware speeds of a single machine, yet we're talking about the feasibility of a distributed system being able to sustain random bursts of write amplification factor of 100 million across a decentralized database, with ideally exactly-once write semantics even if a failure occurs mid-way -- and that's all in addition to whatever the normal baseline write activity of all "normal" users with more reasonable follower counts. Again, completely different problems.
> I don't think so. Not with tweets.
So in your design, if the singular data center that maintains all users' inboxes goes offline for a long period of time, the entire product just goes down. And you think that's acceptable for a business valued in the tens of billions of dollars?
You seem absolutely convinced that a massive social network can be run on a shoestring budget with tiny staff, and no amount of evidence from someone like me (who actually worked on this stuff in depth, and posts with my real name, and expertise in profile) will convince you otherwise, so I suppose I should just stop replying to you.
