> The gains for doing this for individual large services are significant (in the case of service-1, it's [mid 7 figures per year] for the service and [low 8 figures per year] including services that are clones of it, but tuning every service by hand isn't scalable.
This point seems wrong to me, bound too much by requiring solutions to be done by a small team of engineers who already have a mandate to work on the problem.
With numbers like that Twitter could, profitably, hire dozens of engineers that do literally nothing else. Just tweak thread pool sizes all day, every day, for service after service. Even though it's a boring, manual, "noncomplex" thing, this type of work is clearly valuable and should have happened years ago.
Most likely Twitter's job ladder, promotion process, and hiring pipeline is highly incentivizing people to avoid such work even when it has clear impact. They are very much not alone in that regard.
This point seems wrong to me, bound too much by requiring solutions to be done by a small team of engineers who already have a mandate to work on the problem.
With numbers like that Twitter could, profitably, hire dozens of engineers that do literally nothing else. Just tweak thread pool sizes all day, every day, for service after service. Even though it's a boring, manual, "noncomplex" thing, this type of work is clearly valuable and should have happened years ago.
Most likely Twitter's job ladder, promotion process, and hiring pipeline is highly incentivizing people to avoid such work even when it has clear impact. They are very much not alone in that regard.