3 ms·
I take offense with you comment. It's not the first time I'm hearing about multi-region/multi-cloud in online tech forums, however reality doesn't match. I don
by mhitza 4y ago
I take offense with you comment. It's not the first time I'm hearing about multi-region/multi-cloud in online tech forums, however reality doesn't match.
I don't want to be snarky, but when large service providers like AWS have their own crossregion downtime because one snowflake of a service in us-east-1 is down, I kind of dismiss the virtue signaling of high resilient multi-(az/region/cloud) ever existing in practice.
If you can somehow have a separate database per region/cloud, sure, I can understand that, but if you have to shard your database across many clouds, I'd dread having to tame such a beast, especially within a startup.
- panarky 4y ago> dismiss the virtue signaling of high resilient ... So you're saying it's impossible to improve reliability from 97% to 99% because you can never make it to 100%.
- quesera 4y agoIf your single-AZ, single-region cloud is not giving you 3 or 4 9's of reliability out of the box, you are using the wrong cloud. Multi-AZ and multi-region add complexity and cost much more quickly than they add reliability. Sometimes it is worth it. Sometimes it is not.
- champtar 4y agoDepends on your needs, but having your data & database multi-az to ensure durability can avoid you having to restart from backups. I'm thinking about an old AWS incident were they actually lost EBS data: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-outage-shows-data-in-the-cloud-is-not-always-safe/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-... Also make sure your backups are in a different AZ (thinking about OVH ...) or region or even at a different provider.