3 ms·
> but because those services rely heavily on giving every customer their own SQL database, there is almost no reasonable way to get fast failover to a different
by drewcrawford 14y ago
> but because those services rely heavily on giving every customer their own SQL database, there is almost no reasonable way to get fast failover to a different data center
Why did you say you could do fast failover to LA in 2007? [1] It was the case then that every customer had their own SQL database too.
I'm not trying to be snarky, your team is obviously putting forth some heroic effort. I'm just an affected customer that is curious why the question seems to have two mutually exclusive answers.
[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lHEK939AKiEJ:www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/07/09.html+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lHEK939...
- guiambros 14y agoI'd be curious to see if there's any update to FBOD architecture. The idea of using self-hosted servers running SQL Server and IIS already sounded eccentric 5 years ago, but given the number of options today, it'd be hard to still justify such a monolithic solution. In all fairness, Joel recognized in the article that the initial decision was based on their previous experience with Microsoft -- and AWS was still incipient in 2007 -- so it made sense at the time. I doubt this is still the case. Even less if you consider the costs of Sandy - duplicated servers, migration, hours lost, unhappy clients, etc.