Needs (2000) really. This contrived test is using tiny VPSes (even the "big" machine is tiny), slow network-mounted DB storage, nothing like a production stack that a real API server would use. Bespoke simple profiling mechanism. Nothing wrong with OP learning the basics and experimenting, but there's nothing of value in the findings.
Regarding the machine's sizes - I did it on purpose, to showcase that even with this limited resources, you can still achieve way better performance than most systems will ever need.
I know that you can have significantly bigger machines; network-mounted DB storage on the other hand is not slow - it's designed specifically for these kind of use cases
Local NVMe storage is incredibly fast though for databases. Probably not a big factor in your test here, but certainly a relevant factor if you was to push the DB more.
Needs (2000) really. This contrived test is using tiny VPSes (even the "big" machine is tiny), slow network-mounted DB storage, nothing like a production stack that a real API server would use. Bespoke simple profiling mechanism. Nothing wrong with OP learning the basics and experimenting, but there's nothing of value in the findings.
The title reminds me of C10K problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C10k_problem
Regarding the machine's sizes - I did it on purpose, to showcase that even with this limited resources, you can still achieve way better performance than most systems will ever need.
I know that you can have significantly bigger machines; network-mounted DB storage on the other hand is not slow - it's designed specifically for these kind of use cases
Local NVMe storage is incredibly fast though for databases. Probably not a big factor in your test here, but certainly a relevant factor if you was to push the DB more.