3 ms·
Stupid question: why didn't sites "just" fail over to their actual servers to handle the traffic, albeit slowly? I guess they won't be sized to handle the load
by alexchamberlain 5y ago
Stupid question: why didn't sites "just" fail over to their actual servers to handle the traffic, albeit slowly? I guess they won't be sized to handle the load in a lot of cases, and Fastly was responding, so DNS fail over didn't work?
- abluecloud 5y agoyeah. the dns was up. the problem was the servers weren't able to proxy the traffic. Also, as you say, you'll probably end up bringing down the upstream servers if you just fail open (and not even sure that'd be a possibility with fastly in it's "down" state that we saw).
- altacc 5y agoProbably a different answer for each site. I'm not a DNS expert but I think you're right on both counts. Having failover also requires a duplicate CDN architecture at the fallback location, which is an increase of costs in time, money & maintenance for relatively little benefit. Often there's a fair amount of background integration with a CDN, and each function slightly differently, so it's not simply plug & play.