3 ms·
>Of course there would be the point where I would need help from people who are specialized in database design / sharding / partitioning, etc - likely earlier t
by papsosouid 14y ago
>Of course there would be the point where I would need help from people who are specialized in database design / sharding / partitioning, etc - likely earlier than going the cloud hosting route
Where does this misconception come from? That is the exact opposite of reality. With the "cloud" route, you are limited to absurdly inadequate servers, which is a large part of what drove the "nosql" fad, you need to shard if you are on EC2, because they offered nothing with reasonable IO. Even now they have an SSD option, but it is a single crappy SSD, and barely any RAM. With the dedicated route, you can do a 512GB RAM, 24 SSD array server and not have to worry about sharding until you are in the top50 sites on the web.
- fallenhitokiri 14y agoAuthor here. From what I understand AWS tries to address the performance problem with RDS - marketing statement "this is build for solving this problem". Do you have any experience with RDS? Still the same problem? That this problem does not exist if you kill it with hardware in the first place is true. But the way from evaluating an idea, to gaining traction, to hiring people and buying hardware is still a long way.
- papsosouid 14y agoUnfortunately, RDS is EBS backed, so it does nothing to solve the issue. And you are stuck with oracle on top of that.
- fallenhitokiri 14y agoThis basically rules out the last provider I knew of with a hosted DB option. Looks like DBs of a certain size are still a "do it yourself" area :/ Thanks for the info