4 ms·
But 99% of the time you don't outgrow it and don't have SLA's requiring them to have failover or HA. This is why so many sites can get away with using PostgreSQ
by eikenberry 1y ago
But 99% of the time you don't outgrow it and don't have SLA's requiring them to have failover or HA. This is why so many sites can get away with using PostgreSQL with it's complete lack of good/native HA.
- bakies 1y agoHA and failover, to me-in these small deploys, is more about hardware maintenance rather than maintaining SLAs. Being able to shutdown the computer hosting your containers to scale vertically.
- spwa4 1y agoSingle-site-2-absurdly-intense-days failover, yes. With weeks of cleanup afterwards. What every company seems to want: multisite, multimaster immediate failover, no. Also kubernetes buys you scaling. Compute. Disk. Database (with help). Etc. Now I rail against companies for wanting that, and I think you're right. Your webshop does not need that. It has so many moving parts the redundancy will cause more outages than it solves. But you can do this, and so people will pay for it. It is a technical accomplishment. And with sufficiently good sysadmins, it can work well, and scale.
- icedchai 1y agoYou could always run a VM / VPS against a managed DB. Many small cloud / VPS providers, like Digital Ocean or Vultr, also offer managed DB services that are cheaper than AWS RDS.