Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> They should have spun up a new server to act as secondary the moment replication failed.

In a perfect world everything is cluster-ready &c at the outset. In this world it usually... isn't.

EDIT: ... and I'd posit that such cluster-readiness actually isn't worth it most of the time.




You don't think it's worth it most the time because of the hassle of setting up and managing a cluster, or because clusters in and of it self is not necessary for most?


The latter. I think it's a 1% business case, basically. I mean, if we can get 80% benefit without excessive cost, then it's obviously a good idea. (And I do use Ansible/Docker and the like, but it's not entirely without friction... which is where the cost/benefit analysis comes in.)

EDIT: Obviously, if you really need clustering, then you need it, but IME people tend to overestimate their needs drastically. Everybody wants to be Big Data, but almost nobody actually is.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: