4 ms·
So it's cheaper *on AWS*. Any cloud provider where cross-AZ traffic is not $$$, I can't imagine this architecture being cheaper. Engineering solutions which on
by peanut-walrus 1y ago
So it's cheaper *on AWS*. Any cloud provider where cross-AZ traffic is not $$$, I can't imagine this architecture being cheaper.
Engineering solutions which only exist because AWS pricing is whack are...well, certainly a choice.
I can also think of lots of cases where whatever you're running is fine to just run in a single AZ since it's not critical.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nicksnyder 1y agoThe other clouds have fees like this too. Even if this were to change, using object storage results in a lot of operational simplicity as well compared to managing a bunch of disks. You can easily and quickly scale to zero or scale up to handle bursts in traffic. An architecture like this also makes it possible to achieve a truly active-active multi-region Kafka cluster that has real SLAs. See: https://buf.build/blog/bufstream-multi-region https://buf.build/blog/bufstream-multi-region (disclosure: I work at Buf)
- voxic11 1y agoI think Azure eliminated their inter-availability zone data transfer fees last year. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates?id=update-on-interavailability-zone-data-transfer-pricing https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates?id=update-on-inter...