4 ms·
That's a really interesting point. The startup I currently work for only uses a single AZ due to financial concerns (and some performance as well), but I assume
by amirs 6y ago
That's a really interesting point. The startup I currently work for only uses a single AZ due to financial concerns (and some performance as well), but I assume we'll have to move to more AZs for reliability.
Would you advise the same for clusters of RDS and Elasticache?
I'm wondering how you would even go about having two separate data sources, how would this be manageable?
- wbl 6y agoActive-passive with database replication and manual failover is the usual solution.
- jniedrauer 6y agoI've found that for RDS, a writer instance and a hot standby reader instance with automatic failover work pretty well. When a failover happens, you're usually looking at about 30 seconds of downtime, which is "good enough" for most purposes.
- icedchai 6y ago30 seconds is pretty good. I worked on an "enterprise" system running AIX and HACMP (IBM's HA software.) A failover event would take minutes... and this was on the same local network.
- capableweb 6y agoBefore assuming that your reliability would be increased by adding more AZs, verify where the problems of reliability comes from in the first place. I find more times than not, the down times comes from people applying changes, not when you just leave things running like they are. It's only if the AZ or underlying machines has troubles, that you should start thinking of expanding to other AZs