@nuintari Indeed. I've heard enough stories that I'm glad I got in at [redacted], an incredibly boring corporate job where I don't have much in the way of sysadmin responsibilities, but our admins are generally Quite Competent, aside from sticking their heads in the dirt with regards to IPv6...

I seem to remember StackExchange posting something about how they eventually figured out as part of their performance tuning that it was faster to just give the database boxes a TB of RAM to fit the indexes in memory than it was to have a separate cache server, as it took the same amount of time to simply query the cache as it did to render the page 'from nothing' with an in-memory index...

@becomethewaifu @nuintari RAM > clever crap.

A couple decades ago I remember being parachuted into a customer site that was having performance problems. It took a day or so to get through my checklist of known performance issues to search for, but I eventually found that their database was capped at using 500MB of RAM on a 16GB machine. I changed one setting at allow the DB to use up to 8GB, and told their ops folks to restart the server overnight.

The client was over the moon that I fixed this issue they had been suffering with for weeks, in a little more than 48h.

(And I moved the DB RAM check to the top 10 of my performance checklist.)