3 ms·
If it's only a cache it should be on EBS, which is still way faster and 2x less expensive. I started a migration to s3 for such a project (container image cachi
by awoimbee 3y ago
If it's only a cache it should be on EBS, which is still way faster and 2x less expensive.
I started a migration to s3 for such a project (container image caching) but then stopped when I realized what I was doing.
- paulddraper 3y ago1. You'd need an access/authentication layer on top of that. 2. Variable throughput may be a concern. 3. You may have availability concerns.
- rbranson 3y agoEBS attaches a single block storage volume to a single host[1]. S3 Express is a service-based object store. Apples and oranges. [1] Yes, I am aware of multi-attach but this introduces a scaling bottleneck and requires a fairly exotic setup.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoYes, EBS is the gold standard but managing a EBS to scale up and down instantly, be available to multiple instances, lifecycle management, managing replica, switchover etc. are definitely not easy. And EBS are bad choice when throughput needed is very spiky.