5 ms·
"More people need to realize and accept this." More yes, but definitely not all:) It really depends on your skill-set and experience with running redundant, H
by modoc 18y ago
"More people need to realize and accept this."
More yes, but definitely not all:)
It really depends on your skill-set and experience with running redundant, HA, systems and services. And if you have the time to deal with it yourself.
There's no reason you can't provide better uptime than Amazon has thus far, if you have the right folks and the right budget (multiple boxes at each tier). If you don't have the experience in-house, and don't want to manage your own servers, that's 100% legitimate, but don't assume beating Amazon's uptime would be hard.
- anamax 18y ago> If you don't have the experience in-house, and don't want to manage your own servers, that's 100% legitimate, but don't assume beating Amazon's uptime would be hard. The relevant questions aren't whether you can beat Amazon's uptime but: (1) How much is it worth to beat Amazon's uptime by the amount that you're likely to beat it? (2) Could you produce more value by spending the time/money that it would take you to beat Amazon on something else?
- evgen 18y agoOne other point to consider is that while AWS provides nice scaling and availability features, it still has some latency issues to work out. Latency between two EC2 instances will be higher than two systems you are running on the same LAN, so if you need high-throughput/low-latency communication between nodes you should probably also run your own server farm.