3 ms·
> So long as you don't lose data The article advocates storing data in local sqlite on single server. That means that when the server goes poof you will lose d
by zokier 3y ago
> So long as you don't lose data
The article advocates storing data in local sqlite on single server. That means that when the server goes poof you will lose data. How much data, depends on how frequently you run backups. But it will be non-zero amount.
And backups bring the other point. It will never be just one server like the author proclaims. You need another server for the backups. Now you have two servers, and a dependency between them. The dreaded complexity is creeping in again, almost if it was inevitable
- geysersam 3y agoThe article suggest using litestream to continuously back up the data to remote storage. Sure you'll still loose some data but that's always the case whatever solution you choose.
- erik_seaberg 3y agoA quorum across isolated facilities doesn't lose data unless a disaster hits all of them at once. Unfortunately, "disaster" includes a bad commit that is deployed too quickly.
- Sammi 3y agoSqlite has exactly the same backup solutions as other sql dbs and the author specifically recommends using litestream to backup.