3 ms·
It seems like the obvious play here is to fail-over all workloads to the west coast, so they don't incur cross-regional latency. Do they explain why this wasn't
by jeremyjh 8y ago
It seems like the obvious play here is to fail-over all workloads to the west coast, so they don't incur cross-regional latency. Do they explain why this wasn't possible? If so I cannot find it.
- sciurus 8y agoThat's a great question I was surprised to see unaddressed. It's unclear what workloads they normally have in East coast vs West coast, or if they have enough capacity to run everything in the West coast.
- grogers 8y ago> All database primaries established in US East Coast again. This resulted in the site becoming far more responsive as writes were now directed to a database server that was co-located in the same physical data center as our application tier. All their application servers were in the east coast DC. There wasn't anything to fail over to in the west coast DC. Why they had this fail over config for their DB is a bit unusual given the topology, it seems like they probably meant to use these replicas purely for DR.
- jeremyjh 8y agoThe quote does not address my question. It just says that everything was fine once their masters were in the east again with their application servers. The question of why there are no application servers in the west to fail-over to is what I'm curious about.