3 ms·
Oh I see what you mean, you're concerned about the first bytes to the browser being faulty. Well, that 2% error rate is spread out across the total of requests,
by recuter 14y ago
Oh I see what you mean, you're concerned about the first bytes to the browser being faulty. Well, that 2% error rate is spread out across the total of requests, the likelihood of a user getting a 500 on his first hit should be significantly less then 2%. (but it does seem like it will still be way too high)
Very valid point saurik, thanks for pointing out the extent of the problem. It is a dilemma. Seems kind of silly to have an instance just for the first hit to go through reliably for visitors, goddamit Amazon.
Edit: Wait a minute, maybe this could be solved with custom error pages which I think they support. :P
- ryeguy 14y agoThe likelihood of a user getting a 500 on his first hit is the same as the user getting a 500 on his 100th hit - 2%.
- Dylan16807 14y agoI..what? That's not how percents work.
- recuter 14y agoNo, it isn't, but that's not what I meant either. I'm assuming that not all requests are equivalent because of the nature of S3.
- Dylan16807 14y agoYou're going to need to explain how the requests would differ. If anything I'd expect image files to be more cache-friendly and have fewer visible failures than the critical html files. An image might have a 2% failure rate once or twice plus fifty error-free cache loads, while an html page might have 2% failure every single click.