5 ms·
and this is the reason why you let other people pay to test the infrastructure "cloud". it's hard to justify not being able to do _anything_ when any AWS goes d
by cpinto 18y ago
and this is the reason why you let other people pay to test the infrastructure "cloud". it's hard to justify not being able to do _anything_ when any AWS goes down as smugmug must be figuring out by now.
here's a piece of advice: start by leasing a couple of $75 USD per month servers. if you can, buy instead of lease. if you go bust, you can sell the hardware on ebay whereas with AWS you can't do any of that it's just money you're throwing away for 0 assets. AWS still needs to be managed, you still need sysadmins available 24/7 so you won't save any money there. the only thing AWS has going for it is provisioning. be smart and take advantage of that (eg. have your own physical infrastructure and be able to send some of the load the way of AWS if and when you need to).
- bpedro 18y agoOr... use multiple cloud infrastructure solutions creating a fail-over in case some of them goes down. Think of this as a "Cloud Balancer".
- trezor 18y agoAnd here I thought the whole cloud infrastructure was supposed to provide its own redundancy. If you need to first setup your site to work with a cloud, and then need to add a cloud balancer to guarantee uptime, maybe a regular network load balancer and old-fashioned solutions might be a better option. At least then you have a tried and tested solution, not to mention you got it all under your control so things can actually be fixed.