3 ms·
That's really an amazing system. Super redundant. A relatively easy boost, which he briefly mentioned, would be to also store the data in S3. That should be ea
by zbanks 16y ago
That's really an amazing system. Super redundant.
A relatively easy boost, which he briefly mentioned, would be to also store the data in S3. That should be easy enough to be automated, which could provide a a somewhat-reliable off-site backup.
However, Instapaper has the benefit of a (relatively) small DB. 22GB isn't too bad.I don't know how well this would scale to a 222GB DB with proportionally higher usage rates. It'd be possible, but it would have to be simplified, no?
- jforman 16y agoI'd call S3 super-reliable rather than somewhat-reliable: "Amazon S3 is designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000,000 years. In addition, Amazon S3 is designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities." It's slow as a result...but that's the trade-off you're looking for in a backup. http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#How_durable_is_Amazon_S3 http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#How_durable_is_Amazon_S3
- slaven 16y agoYes, unless there is a billing problem with your account, someone is causing a problem with your account, etc. As an Amazon S3 and AWS user I would say they are fairly reliable overall - nowhere near super-reliable!