• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle


  • Sorry, yes, that was durability. I got it mixed up in my head. Availability had lower targets.

    But I stand by the gist of my argument - you can achieve a lot with a live/live system, or a 3 node system with a master election, or…

    High availability doesn’t have to equate high cost or complexity, if you can take it into account when designing the system.


  • I used to work on an on premise object storage system before, where we required double digits of “nines” availability. High availability is not rocket science. Most scenarios are covered by having 2 or 3 machines.

    I’d also wager that using the cloud properly is a different skillset than properly managing or upgrading a Linux system, not necessarily a cheaper or better one from a company point of view.


  • Got to agree with @Zushii@feddit.de here, although it depends on the scope of your service or project.

    Cloud services are good at getting you up and running quickly, but they are very, very expensive to scale up.

    I work for a financial services company, and we are paying 7 digit monthly AWS bills for an amount of work that could realistically be done with one really big dedicated server. And now we’re required to support multiple cloud providers by some of our customers, we’ve spent a TON of effort trying to untangle from SQS/SNS and other AWS specific technologies.

    Clouds like to tell you:

    • Using the cloud is cheaper than running your own server
    • Using cloud services requires less manpower / labour to maintain and manage
    • It’s easier to get up and running and scale up later using cloud services

    The last item is true, but the first two are only true if you are running a small service. Scaling up on a cloud is not cost effective, and maintaining a complicated cloud architecture can be FAR more complicated than managing a similar centralized architecture.