4 ms·
Your comment reads like a sales pitch for RDS. We have failover replicas in different geographically distributed datacenters. Failovers happen more or less inst
by orf 4y ago
Your comment reads like a sales pitch for RDS. We have failover replicas in different geographically distributed datacenters. Failovers happen more or less instantly and the added latency (~0.5ms) is fine.
So for us this doesn't increase complexity, it greatly reduces it while increasing availability and general confidence, even though the underlying system (RDS/Aurora) is clearly very complex.
If you're running a tinpot site with a single developer on a couple of pet servers, then fair enough. But it's definitely not correct to say that a simple, direct system is the epitome of reliability. It's not.
- candiodari 4y agoI don't understand this. Actually I use SQLite linked in to the site code itself. Very tough to beat on a whole host of metrics. Shared data is spread like configuration.
- keneda7 4y agoI don't run a tinpot site but I am the sole developer managing a couple web servers and services for my company. Our db failure works much like you described. Maybe a .5ms added latency if that regardless of physical location more like .1ms from our metrics. Every quarter we test it, and without fail, it has worked. So I added maybe a couple hours of research and two minutes of additional configurations during set up for reliably fast failover. Seems pretty no brainer to me. When we moved to a managed instance with our cloud provider it took even less time to set up failover, maybe 30 seconds. With the numerous options for cloud offerings these days I see no reason to not have a failover set up whether you are a massive corporation or a small business.