2 ms·

I think if you dismiss HA setups of SQL dbs as "you won't get around to operating it properly" the same ops culture will also end up getting many less 9's avail

I think if you dismiss HA setups of SQL dbs as "you won't get around to operating it properly" the same ops culture will also end up getting many less 9's availability than aspired to with Kafka. (But also of course lots of applications are also fine with the availability that you get from fate-sharing with a single db server)

lmm 3y ago
> I think if you dismiss HA setups of SQL dbs as "you won't get around to operating it properly" the same ops culture will also end up getting many less 9's availability than aspired to with Kafka. Up to a point. IME Kafka is a lot easier to operate in true HA form than SQL dbs, and a lot more commonly operated that way; Kafka has a reputation for being harder to operate than a typical datastore, but that's usually comparing a HA Kafka setup with a single-node SQL db. And I don't know why, but many otherwise high-quality ops teams seem to have a bizzare blind spot around SQL dbs where they'll tolerate a much lower level of resilience/availability than they would for any other part of the stack.