4 ms·
So I just read the article - they were on RDS so Citus wasn't an option. They also stated it was too risky to migrate data stores on the timeline they were wor
by djtango 3y ago
So I just read the article - they were on RDS so Citus wasn't an option.
They also stated it was too risky to migrate data stores on the timeline they were working within
Those all seem like measured engineering decisions AFAICT
- winrid 3y agoThat doesn't sound right. Do data dump from prod for initial sync and then setup replication from RDS to new cluster. Once synced do switch. Then you're off RDS and can shard on Citus.
- raverbashing 3y agoYes but they probably wouldn't want to migrate off RDS.
- nathanappere 3y agoThis doesn't work with the constraint of "staying on AWS" though.
- winrid 3y agoYes it does.
- djtango 3y agoa) they didn't want to move off RDS b) this is a pretty big hand wave over migrating your persistence store on a moving product and moving engineering teams The coordination alone usually takes months
- winrid 3y agoYes, it takes months. They also spent months building this custom solution that they now need to maintain.
- thibaut_barrere 3y agoI do agree here. The choice to prefer X over Y for hosting (no matter X and Y) often makes sense, changing hosting providers can take a bit of time & it's hard to fully assess the reality of the quality of support / security (again, not specifically writing about RDS or Citus, both are very good teams) beforehand, so it usually is safer to have a long probing period to move safely, which takes time, something they visibly didn't have much.