3 ms·

What about simply spinning up a new VM on a service like AWS, keep the database and switch the load balancer you've confirmed the app is responding on the new V

• abrookewood 11y ago
  Yeah, that's how I would typically do it, but he isn't on AWS and he's aiming to keep the cost down. And he's also keeping it simple, so no load balancers etc.
  • mrtron 11y ago
    If you are getting a request per second, I think a load balancer on AWS has tremendous value.
    • ngrilly 11y ago
      1 request per second is nothing for a modern server. Most applications are able to handle hundreds or thousands of transactions on a single machine. Why do you think a load balancer would be useful?
• citruspi 11y ago
  From the post: > Aside: With regard to technology choices, the guiding principle I’ve been following is to keep the stack as simple as is feasible for as long as possible. Adding things, like load balancers, database replication, key value store, message queue and so on, would each have certain benefits. Then on the other hand, there would also be more stuff to be managed, monitored, and kept backed up. Also, for someone new to the project, it would take more time to figure out the “ins and outs” of the system and set up everything from scratch. I see it as a nifty challenge to stay with the simple, no-frills setup, while also not compromising performance or features. > Let’s set some constraints: no load balancer (for now anyway). But yeah, that would work otherwise.