2 ms·
Or we can do what we did and save money instead and gain the guarantees. Plus achieve our original goal of performance by bringing the bytes inside our datacent
by mattrobenolt 10y ago
Or we can do what we did and save money instead and gain the guarantees. Plus achieve our original goal of performance by bringing the bytes inside our datacenter instead of going out through public internet.
- openasocket 10y agoYeah, what I mentioned does nothing to improve performance, just thought I'd mention it as something to think about. For your use case S3 replication doesn't really give you extra availability. In practice I would likely use your caching method, and use S3 replication in addition, if I had a large dataset that doesn't cache well. Or if I absolutely needed to maintain write availability, in which case I would use bi-directional S3 replication.
- mattrobenolt 10y agoDefinitely. If our dataset was absolutely massive and we couldn't hold a reasonable amount on disk, it'd make more sense. Fortunately, we are getting a 90+% hit ratio out of a very small amount of space relative to the size of our bucket. And yeah, we have 0 resiliance for write data here. Again, fortunately, we can afford this tradeoff since the amount of uploads is significantly lower and much less critical for us.