You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Provision to handle a simultaneous planned and unplanned outage, without making the user experience unacceptable; this results in an "N + 2” configuration, where peak traffic can be handled by N instances (possibly in degraded mode) while the largest 2 instances are unavailable.
While they are specifically describing nodes, the concept could be expanded to mean any fundamental resource. Given a stellar (but imperfect) history of AWS' uptime, it seems that three (3) would be an improved number to suit the foundational concept of a distributed system.
In this way, we could be slightly better off knowing that we could withstand an unplanned outage in the middle of a planned outage.
What say the council?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What feature/behavior/change do you want?
I'd like to suggest the minimum number of subnets be changed from
2 -> 3
; docs.Why do you want this feature?
The SRE Handbook describes Capacity Planning like:
While they are specifically describing nodes, the concept could be expanded to mean any fundamental resource. Given a stellar (but imperfect) history of AWS' uptime, it seems that three (3) would be an improved number to suit the foundational concept of a distributed system.
In this way, we could be slightly better off knowing that we could withstand an unplanned outage in the middle of a planned outage.
What say the council?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: