zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. sillys+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-07-09 01:42:46
I was wondering how they got the server up so quickly when their actual hardware failed. Dropping a bunch of cash on a big virtual server while they rebuild makes sense.

It’s also a reminder that beefy virtual servers are pretty darn beefy nowadays. I wonder which tier they went with.

replies(1): >>jayd16+d5
◧
2. jayd16+d5[view] [source] 2022-07-09 02:25:43
>>sillys+(OP)
It was down all morning, I half expected a post about a trip to Best Buy.
replies(1): >>sillys+v7
◧◩
3. sillys+v7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-09 02:42:10
>>jayd16+d5
Yeah. Bare metal failing is approximately the worst case scenario behind data loss. Being down all morning is an impressive recovery time, because they had to provision an EC2 server and transfer all data to it.
replies(1): >>pmoria+5U
◧◩◪
4. pmoria+5U[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-09 11:20:52
>>sillys+v7
> Being down all morning is an impressive recovery time, because they had to provision an EC2 server and transfer all data to it

It looks like the data was already in S3: [1]

The recovery probably would have been a lot faster had they had a fully provisioned EC2 image standing by... which I'd bet they will from now on.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32032316

[go to top]