3 ms·
Except, it’s hard to do vertical scaling dynamically. That kind of kills this whole argument except in certain pretty unusual cases.
by antonvs 3y ago
Except, it’s hard to do vertical scaling dynamically.
That kind of kills this whole argument except in certain pretty unusual cases.
- niederman 3y agoI think for most use cases overprovisioning a single instance to meet max denand will still be cheaper than dynamic provisioning with the synchronization overhead of a distributed system.
- re-thc 3y ago> Except, it’s hard to do vertical scaling dynamically. Easiest to just create a new instance scaled up vertically and swap it over.
- paulddraper 3y agoHow many times do you need to scale? In the usual case.
- antonvs 3y agoWhat’s the “usual case”? We scale up and down thousands of times a day.
- lelanthran 3y agoYeahz but the argument being made is that there's overhead in that, primarily in the extra Dev time needed to build such a system, and the extra failure points introduced requiring more maintenance effort. Those two items can be substantial (5x headcount), or they can be merely "standard" (2x headcount). They're never zero extra headcount.
- paulddraper 3y ago> What’s the “usual case”? Whatever isn't the "unusual cases" you mentioned. > We scale up and down thousands of times a day. Sounds unnecessary for most cases.