On 4/26/11 10:07 PM, kowsik wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Wes Gamble<[email protected]> wrote:
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."
One of the comments that I've heard is that EBS is like a NAS drive,
except its generating traffic on the same interface as the
application. The more the app load that triggers more DB/file system
load, the higher the chances of network congestion.
You can't access a disk drive that's sitting across a different region
because of the geo latency. You might be able to get away with the
throughput, but the latency will be very visible. This is partly why
an EBS in a particular AZ has to be used by an instance in that AZ.
These are all guesses into a black box that we don't necessarily know
how things operate. People are guessing based on the constraints
presented by Amazon and the variability in performance.
That makes sense.
So, an entire region of AWS was down, correct?
W
--
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.
