181–190 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multi-AZ architecture just double the cost at least, and it tends to cost even much more if the business is small. Good engineers find the balance between the cost and the availability.
No that is not correct, it is not double the cost, please see my reply above.
I'm running Terraform and it appears to be stuck now. What do I do??
Depends what it’s stuck doing, but you might ctrl-c it and later manually unlock the state file (by carefully coordinating with colleagues and deleting the dynamo DB lock object if you’re using the s3 backend) when the outage is over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you NOT pay more for running double of everything + load balancers?
You do not need to pay double for everything, that might have been true with traditional VPS providers but it is not the way it works with cloud services. You decide on what kind of failure you're willing to tolerate and then architect based on those requirements (loss of multiple AZ's, loss of a region, etc..). Let's say your website requires 4 application servers, you can then tolerate a single AZ failure by using…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a good trade off, if your infra is in TF, is to be able to run your scripts with a parameterized AZ/region. That way you can reduce the downtime even more at a fraction of the cost. (assuming the services that are down are not the base layers of AWS, like the 2020 outage)
If you can get the data out of the downed AZ, don't have state you need to transfer and are not shot in the foot once the primary replica comes online again. I've rarely deployed an app where it was as easy as just to change a region variable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you're using RDS then multi-AZ deployment is just a simple configuration option. If you're using Aurora then it is handled automatically and is even less expensive.
don't all the multi-AZ deployments imply at least 1 standby replica in a different AZ?
The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. It would be one thing if this was a Regional failure, but a single AZ failure should not have any noticeable effect.
> The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. Not really. What's more likely is that their companies have other priorities. Multi-AZ architectures are more expensive to run, but that's normally not the issue. What's really costly is testing their assumptions. Sure, by…
(Or worse, the redundancy causes a subtle failure like data loss.)
The fact that so many popular sites/services are experiencing issues due to a single AZ failure makes me think that there is a serious shortage of good cloud architects/engineers in the industry. It would be one thing if this was a Regional failure, but a single AZ failure should not have any noticeable effect.
For most businesses a little down time here and there is a calculated risk versus more complex infrastructure. You can’t assume all the cloud architects are idiots — they have to report their task list and cost of infrastructure to someone who can give feedback on various options based on comparative resource requirements and risks. Zone downtime still falls under an AWS SLA so you know about how much downtime to acc…
However, in my experience, the people doing the calculations on that risk have no incentive to cover it. Their bonus has no link to the uptime and they can blame $INFRA for the lost millions and still meet their targets and get promoted / crosshired.
The people who warned them and asked for funding are the ones working late and having conf calls with the true stakeholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you're using RDS then multi-AZ deployment is just a simple configuration option. If you're using Aurora then it is handled automatically and is even less expensive.
don't all the multi-AZ deployments imply at least 1 standby replica in a different AZ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that is not correct, it is not double the cost, please see my reply above.
Salaries are a cost.
At least that’s what was recently told to me by my manager to explai why my employer prefers to hire people to self manage the AWS infra.