3 ms·

Multi-AZ is free at Amazon. Having things split amongst 3 AZ's cost no more than having in a single AZ. Multi-Region is a different story.

suifbwish 5y ago
Having bare metal may not be less stress but AWS is by no means cheap.
- johnmarcus 5y ago
  AWS is not cheap, but splitting amongst AZ's is of no additional cost.
  - orangepurple 5y ago
    False Data Transfer within the same AWS Region Data transferred "in" to and "out" from Amazon EC2, Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, Amazon DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX), and Amazon ElastiCache instances, Elastic Network Interfaces or VPC Peering connections across Availability Zones in the same AWS Region is charged at $0.01/GB in each direction. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_within_the_same_AWS_Region https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_...
  - StreamBright 5y ago
    > AWS is not cheap Wrong. Depends on the use case AWS can be very cheap. > splitting amongst AZ's is of no additional cost. Wrong. " across Availability Zones in the same AWS Region is charged at $0.01/GB in each direction. Effectively, cross-AZ data transfer in AWS costs 2¢ per gigabyte and each gigabyte transferred counts as 2GB on the bill: once for sending and once for receiving."
otterley 5y ago
There are definitely cost and other considerations you have to think about when going multi-AZ. Cross-AZ network traffic has charges associated with it. Inter-AZ network latency is higher than intra-AZ latency. And there are other limitations as well, such as EBS volumes being attachable only to an instance in the same AZ as the volume. That said, AWS does recommend using multiple Availability Zones to improve overall availability and reduce Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR). (I work for AWS. Opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.)
- znep 5y ago
  This is very true, the costs and performance impacts can be significant if your architecture isn't designed to account for it. And sometimes even if it is. In addition, unless you can cleanly survive an AZ going down, which can take a bunch more work in some cases, then being multi-AZ can actually reduce your availability by giving more things to fail. AZs are a powerful tool but are not a no-brainer for applications at scale that are not designed for them, it is literally spreading your workload across multiple nearby data centers with a bit (or a lot) more tooling and services to help than if you were doing it in your own data centers.

suifbwish 5y ago

Having bare metal may not be less stress but AWS is by no means cheap.

johnmarcus 5y ago
AWS is not cheap, but splitting amongst AZ's is of no additional cost.
- orangepurple 5y ago
  False Data Transfer within the same AWS Region Data transferred "in" to and "out" from Amazon EC2, Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, Amazon DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX), and Amazon ElastiCache instances, Elastic Network Interfaces or VPC Peering connections across Availability Zones in the same AWS Region is charged at $0.01/GB in each direction. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_within_the_same_AWS_Region https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_...
- StreamBright 5y ago
  > AWS is not cheap Wrong. Depends on the use case AWS can be very cheap. > splitting amongst AZ's is of no additional cost. Wrong. " across Availability Zones in the same AWS Region is charged at $0.01/GB in each direction. Effectively, cross-AZ data transfer in AWS costs 2¢ per gigabyte and each gigabyte transferred counts as 2GB on the bill: once for sending and once for receiving."

otterley 5y ago

There are definitely cost and other considerations you have to think about when going multi-AZ. Cross-AZ network traffic has charges associated with it. Inter-AZ network latency is higher than intra-AZ latency. And there are other limitations as well, such as EBS volumes being attachable only to an instance in the same AZ as the volume. That said, AWS does recommend using multiple Availability Zones to improve overall availability and reduce Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR). (I work for AWS. Opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.)

znep 5y ago
This is very true, the costs and performance impacts can be significant if your architecture isn't designed to account for it. And sometimes even if it is. In addition, unless you can cleanly survive an AZ going down, which can take a bunch more work in some cases, then being multi-AZ can actually reduce your availability by giving more things to fail. AZs are a powerful tool but are not a no-brainer for applications at scale that are not designed for them, it is literally spreading your workload across multiple nearby data centers with a bit (or a lot) more tooling and services to help than if you were doing it in your own data centers.