3 ms·
Somewhere in the infrastructure there has to be mutable servers - databases and log servers at the least. I can't think of many architectures where everything
by rotten 11y ago
Somewhere in the infrastructure there has to be mutable servers - databases and log servers at the least. I can't think of many architectures where everything can be a closed appliance.
Are they suggesting that every time you need to apply a security patch, you'll have to build a new server and cut your traffic over to it? That sounds like a lot of DNS and Load Balancer config updates (mutable!) even if the newly patched server builds are 99% automated.
The idea of black-box appliances has been around a long time, and it has its place in the modern infrastructure, but I'm not sure it really solves the problems they are trying to solve (which sound more like change management issues).
- axelfontaine 11y agoThis type of image is primarily designed for 12-factor apps where all persistent state is kept outside the instance in some geo-redundant highly available system like Amazon RDS or S3.
- mugsie 11y agoRDS is not "geo-redundant". It is an multi-AZ DB, which is very different to multi-region. (Availability Zones (AZs) are within a DC, regions are separate DCs)
- axelfontaine 11y ago"Availability Zones (AZs) are within a DC" => not really See this Re:Invent 2014 talk about AWS Innovation At Scale http://mvdirona.com/jrh/talksandpapers/JamesHamiltonReInvent2014.pdf http://mvdirona.com/jrh/talksandpapers/JamesHamiltonReInvent... => Slide 9: "Each AZ is 1 or more DC, No data center is in two AZs, Some AZs have as many as 6 DCs"
- mugsie 11y agoSorry - you are right, with the scale of Amazon they are within a region. But that is still not Geo-Redundant. If a hurricane takes out Virgina, you are still going to loose your data.
- tgeek 11y agoAZ's are typically 5-15miles apart. Needs to be a pretty large hurricane that far in land to take out all the various datacenters. Also, just to clarify, you can do multi-region RDS read-replicas for MySQL: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_ReadRepl.html#USER_ReadRepl.XRgn https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_...
- lamontcg 11y agoThe Virginia DCs are in different flood plains and on different power grids. A hurricane remnant did hit the one year (2005 probably) and a tornado took out power to one of them.
- falcolas 11y agoThe problem with Amazon RDS, and they freely admit it, is that it's not built for the scale at which some companies operate. If you need advanced features of your DB, or need to operate at large scales (the magnitude of scale differs by RDS engine), you'll end up wanting to run your own DB on an EC2 instance.
- jacques_chester 11y agoWhen you have enough business that RDS is too small, you are not going to be heartbroken about paying for a bespoke setup. Until then, ignorance is bliss.
- falcolas 11y agoWell, ignorance also tends to fuel any number of flamewars... In my experience with RDS as a MySQL admin, Amazon was not using sane defaults for quite some time, which resulted in a remarkably non-performant product. Thankfully, they listened to feedback, so over the course of a few years the MySQL RDS instances started to become much more dependable and useful. I'd be happy to use one today, which is something I couldn't have said too long ago. And even with RDS, having a DBA available (even just as a consultant) is still quite useful - it's unrealistic to expect your developers to write ideal SQL. You can get a long ways with RDS if your queries and schemas are well tuned.