3 ms·
The author differentiates between "serverful resources", like RDS and OpenSearch clusters, and "things that should be a platform team's responsibility", like VP
by don-code 4y ago
The author differentiates between "serverful resources", like RDS and OpenSearch clusters, and "things that should be a platform team's responsibility", like VPCs.
I'm currently running a shared RDS cluster, for instance, that's used in a platform capacity. Workloads are isolated from each other; there's a clear pipeline for my team and others to update it; and the eventual goal is to build out monitoring to make it evident which workloads are putting stress on the system, so that the owners can respond. We chose this architecture to save on infrastructure costs, at the expense of marginally higher operational costs, as we explicitly wanted to avoid a proliferation of tiny RDS clusters with each new service. The expectation is that the higher operational cost will ultimately be lower than what infrastructure costs would be.
- longcommonname 4y agoI've found the exact opposite. We have lots of gcp cloudsql instances. Each team handles their own dbs for however they decide to split their services. Our operational costs are more distributed, they are more but they indicate the cost of each product and they separate our data very well. Teams can do their own migrations, and we can prevent some rogue service from violating the data. We are currently in progress for a very large migration from what you have. But I'm sure we just did it wrong.