441–450 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of any project I've worked on where the main data base could be backed up and restored to a different database in "2 minutes" The sarcasm was warranted.
Isn’t the suggestion that the “active work” is very little and most of the time you’re just waiting?
My word. I'm sort of gob smacked this article exists. I know there are nuances in the article, but my first impression was it's saying "we went back to basics and stopped using needless expensive AWS stuff that caused us to completely over architect our application and the results were much better". Which is good lesson, and a good story, but there's a kind of irony it's come from an internal Amazon team. As another…
My word. I'm sort of gob smacked this article exists. I know there are nuances in the article, but my first impression was it's saying "we went back to basics and stopped using needless expensive AWS stuff that caused us to completely over architect our application and the results were much better". Which is good lesson, and a good story, but there's a kind of irony it's come from an internal Amazon team. As another…
There was an article not long ago from AWS saying they'll be focussing on cutting cost for customers. Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their clients off of AWS and telling them to just host on prem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an article not long ago from AWS saying they'll be focussing on cutting cost for customers. Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their clients off of AWS and telling them to just host on prem.
I know you're joking around, but no, as they also explained a benefit of cloud (and therefore using AWS) is that it can scale flexibly with their customers' businesses. If your business invests in physical servers anticipating strong growth next year then later finds out actually we're going into a recession and those servers are no longer needed, then that's a sunk cost. With cloud if demand drops you can scale up a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda depends if you can run replication from aurora to regular database
Aurora Postgres supports bog standard native Postgres logical replication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these small services I think you might be unintentionally arguing with a strawman, as everyone else here is talking about using monoliths instead of that. Few people want to administer a bunch of micro services themselves, but running a single service on a box is pretty low effort, even if you duplicate it for fail over/redundancy
By "using monoliths", do you mean bolting all code you write into a single runtime, even if they are not the same service? Because that's not what was in this article. Instead, they took Step Functions and a bunch of Lambda functions, and created a brand new monolith from that.
In software engineering, a monolithic application describes a single-tiered software application in which the user interface and data access code are combined into a single program from a single platform.
"mono" stands for one/alone/singular, so monolithic is kinda defined to be exactly that, yes.
You can still have multiple monoliths, but they wouldn't communicate with each other and would be entirely separate applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the suggestion that the “active work” is very little and most of the time you’re just waiting?
Well, the elapsed time is how long I need production to be offline so there are a few more people "just waiting"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "using monoliths", do you mean bolting all code you write into a single runtime, even if they are not the same service? Because that's not what was in this article. Instead, they took Step Functions and a bunch of Lambda functions, and created a brand new monolith from that.
> define monolith software In software engineering, a monolithic application describes a single-tiered software application in which the user interface and data access code are combined into a single program from a single platform. "mono" stands for one/alone/singular, so monolithic is kinda defined to be exactly that, yes. You can still have multiple monoliths, but they wouldn't communicate with each other and would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the elapsed time is how long I need production to be offline so there are a few more people "just waiting"
Sure, but you don’t really expect to swap databases with a huge data store without any downtime, do you? I’m not aware of any technology that makes that easy.
If the CEO asked how long a migration will take would you respond "2 minutes of engineering time"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the trust issue doesn't really justify microservices. Assuming everyone is using interoperable languages you can still have a monolith with clear API contacts and separate ownership by using traditional libraries. That is a good point about reliability and cost though. I hadn't heard that before.
What if some team makes the their part 10 times slower. This is not a theoretical scenario, but one I saw happening many times. While technically you could partition and monitor each part of the monolith separately, but then you are just reinventing microservice architecture.
Google "continuous profiling".
I'm not sure why you would think that that reinvents microservices.
Microservices is just taking a monolith and moving the components into separate processes that communicate via RPC.