I would like to understand this statement from the Heroku post-mortem
better:
"2) *Block storage is not a cloud-friendly technology.* EC2, S3, and
other AWS services have grown much more stable, reliable, and performant
over the four years we've been using them. EBS, unfortunately, has not
improved much, and in fact has possibly gotten worse. Amazon employs
some of the best infrastructure engineers in the world: if they can't
make it work, then probably no one can. Block storage has physical
locality that can't easily be transferred. That makes it not a
cloud-friendly technology. With this information in hand, we'll be
taking a hard look on how to reduce our dependence on EBS."
I read about EBS a bit, and it sounds like filesystem, basically.
Although their use of the word raw and block together was somewhat
confusing. Anyhow, I'm wondering to myself "Why couldn't Amazon
distribute copies of the data in an EBS instance across multiple
regions/availability zones?" That does seem potentially
network-intensive and I would accept that doing that on all EBS
instances might be crazy. Or perhaps there's no easy way to abstract
away the reference to the block device so that an EBS client could
easily switch to a copy even if you could make a copy?
Anyhow, if anyone has deeper insight into the source of this statement,
I would love to hear what you have to say.
Many thanks,
Wes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Heroku" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en.
