2 ms·

I'd rather someone tell me that the problem is flawed and offer me another alternative to avoid future problems -- that would be experience talking. I'd rather

by lowglow 15y ago

I'd rather someone tell me that the problem is flawed and offer me another alternative to avoid future problems -- that would be experience talking. I'd rather have someone FIX problems and not just patch a system continuously hobbling down the wrong path. I'd like not be too far down the rabbit hole and figure out we need a major architecture overhaul. More research and planning from the start, saves time and money in the end.

caw 15y ago
Agreed. But this isn't even a solution you can't implement for legacy reasons. At any point you can do this, and you can probably do it live by taking it out of the load balancer equation one at a time. In this case, centralizing storage makes sense. Pros: less stuff to manage, no more rsyncs, immediate feedback on all servers. Save money by only needing to buy 1/n amount of space (assuming the space required is significant) because you're only maintaining X GB centrally versus X GB * n servers. Cons: Money up front, increased latency to fetch data, but you're already waiting up to 5 minutes.