2 ms·
So that when one breaks you have a failover. And because designing for 2 is really different from designing for 1, but not much harder if you do it from the be
by crazygringo 2y ago
So that when one breaks you have a failover.
And because designing for 2 is really different from designing for 1, but not much harder if you do it from the beginning. But expanding from 1 to 2 when you unexpectedly need to because of sudden traffic, and having to re-architect it, can be really hard.
I'm not talking about hobby sites here, I'm talking about anything designed for a business, where downtime of a day is unacceptable.
- gwd 2y agoBut doesn't the same logic apply to the database? Is the webserver / application layer really so much more CPU intensive (and/or prone to failure) than the database in sites "designed for business", such that you can't get away with not designing the webservers for load balancing, but you can get away with not designing the databases for sharding?
- crazygringo 2y agoNo to your first question. And yes to your second, unless you're basically at Facebook scale. That's exactly the difference. Databases are astonishingly more optimized and predictable and reliable than web servers.