Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 months ago.
Improve this question
I need to run my website from two different countries, but the database should be in any one country. How can I improve my database latency to be accessed from cross region.
It is best practice to always keep your database as close as possible to your application to ensure low-latency connections. It is a bad idea to separate them into different places around the world.
One idea:
Only run one application server (in the same location as your database), rather than two. Reduce application latency by using Amazon CloudFront to cache static content closer to your users.
If you really must separate the database from the application server:
Create a Read Replica of the database in the same region as your application. Note that this will be a read-only copy of the database, so your application will need to send updates to the master database in the other region. Fortunately, most database access is for Reads.
Alternatively, use a local cache server (eg Amazon ElastiCache) in your remote region. Consult the cache before going to the database. This is similar to the Read Replica scenario.
All of these options avoid the scenario where the database is separated from the application server.
Network latencies cannot be predicted. During peak hours it will definitely impact the application.
Consider creating read replicas , which is in the one country and keep the master in the other
If you can't push your database to multiple regions (by using read replicas for example), then you should consider using cloudfront in front of your website to allow for caching of requests in the various regions you care about when possible.
This won't technically improve the latency to the database, but in terms of your users perception of performance it may have the same end result by not requiring a round trip to the db server for every request.
If you make a lot of the same queries, PolyScale is a great alternative to a read-replica or creating your own cache. You can connect your database to PolyScale and then just update your application to make requests to the PolyScacle cache rather than the database directly. This eliminates the cost and complexity of a read replica and avoids the challenges of determining what to cache and TTL for a cache you write.
You can read this article about Database Read Replicas vs PolyScale Database Edge Caching.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 months ago.
Improve this question
I have some configuration data i want to read from the spring boot application. The configuration can get bigger and bigger, therefore i dont want to create yaml file in the project. I was thinking about what would be the cheapest way to save this data in AWS. Like DynamoDB? or do you have maybe better and cheaper ideas?
DynamoDB would be a good solution, it will allow you to quickly retrieve and edit the config set. DynamoDB also has a free tier of 25RCU/WCU and 25GB storage per month, which I assume you will fall into that category making it a free option.
The only limitation with DynamoDB is that 400KB is the maximum item size, however, you can split your item up into an "item-collection" where all of the items share the same partition key and the sort key identifies the sub components.
AWS App Config is the correct service to use for application configuration setup but it is not cheaper than using DynamoDB for free, so your trade off is down to what you need from your configuration data.
Ignoring the cheaper part of the question, the AWS AppConfig is the right tool for storing configuration, as it comes with many useful features out of the box (like gradual deployment, rollbacks, validation, etc). You can find pricing information here. Note that the total price will also depend on how often you refresh configuration (i.e. your cache invalidation time). Other tools, like S3, might be cheaper, but are not as well suited for configuration use case.
what would be the cheapest way to save this data in AWS
The cheapest way to save data in AWS is to use S3 Intelligent Deep Archive or S3 Glacier Deep Archive for $0.00099 per GB.
Reference: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking into purchasing server space with AWS to host what will eventually be over 50 websites. They will have many different ranges of traffic coming in. I would like to know if anyone has a recommendation on what size of server that would be able to handle this many sites.
Also, I was wondering if it's more cost effective/efficient to host an separate EC-2 instance for each site or too purchase a large umbrella server and host all sites on a single instance?
Thanks,
Co-locating services on single/multiple servers is a core architecting decision your firm should make. It will directly impact the performance, security and cost of your systems.
The benefit of having multiple services on the same Amazon EC2 instance is that they can share resources (RAM, CPU) so if one application is busy, it has access to more total resources. This is in contrast to running each one on a separate instance, where there is a smaller, finite quantity of resources. Think of it like car-pooling vs riding motorbikes.
Sharing resources means you can probably lower costs, since you'll need less total capacity.
From a security perspective, running on separate instances is much better because they are isolated from each other. You should also investigate network isolation to prevent potential breaches between instances on the same virtual network.
You should also look at the ability to host all of these services using a multi-tenant system as opposed to 50 completely separate systems. This has further benefits in terms of sharing resources and reducing costs. For example, Salesforce.com doesn't run a separate computer for each customer -- all the customers use the same systems, but security and data is kept separate at the application layer.
Bottom line: There are some major architectural decisions to make if you wish to roll-out secure, performant systems.
The short correct answer:
If those sites are only static(html, css and js). EC2 won't be necessary because you can use S3 and it will be more cheap and you won't have to worry about scaling.
But if those sites have a dynamic part like php, python and similar. Well it is a different story.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Sorry if there is an obvious answer to this, but I'm currently in the process of setting up a new company, from where I'll be hosting client websites. Rather than use an external hosting company, I'd like to take full control of this through EC2.
Can multiple websites be hosted on a single instance, or will each new site require it's own instance?
Many thanks,
L
Multiple websites can be hosted on one instance, given that the instance is large enough to handle all the traffic from all the different websites.
Here are two main reasons you would use more than one EC2 instance:
Load: A single instance would not be able to handle the load. In this case you would want to start up multiple servers and place them behind a load balancer so that the load can be shared across them. You might also want to split out each site into separate clusters of EC2 servers to further distribute the load.
Fault tolerance: If you don't design your system with the expectation that an EC2 instance can and will disappear at some point, then you will eventually have a very unpleasant surprise. With your site running on multiple servers, spread out across multiple availability zones, if a server or even an entire AZ goes down your site will stay up.
You don't say if each client will require the same code base or if each client will have a different site, but modularity is also important.
What happens if one client requires a different AMI. Say one client requires some special is package for the server. You don't want to keep updating everybody's app every time you have a new client requirement.
So, multiple instances will allow you to scale each customer at different times and rates and will allow you to develop each solution without affecting each other.
Pricing will also be cheaper as you can use auto scaling to be very efficient about CPU used at any given time, compared to a big instance where you will need to estimate future use.
In short, the biggest value of the cloud is elasticity and modularity, so use that in your favor.
In addition to what Mark B said in his answer about load and fault tolerance, having multiple instances allows you have them in different regions of the world. This is helpful if you have requirements concerning the legality of where the data can be stored or more usually about the latency between the data and the user-application. Data stored in an EU region is going to have much less latency for EU users than data stored in a NA region.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am considering using django / PostgreSQL for an application with the following characteristics :
9,000,000 pages / day. Most pages contain a lot of images
230,000 visitors / day. Only about 30% will log-in on the site
Biggest table in the database could contain +/- 1 billion rows. This table can be partitioned in such a way that each query will access only 2 mio rows. The database does not contain the images.
The tricky side (I think) of the application is that I have the choice either to :
Query often the table with 1 billion rows
Or store some user data in the session when they log-in. The size of the data to be stored in the session per user is about 100Kbytes of data. It means that if I have 7,000 concurrent users logged-in, it would mean about 700 Mb of cached data.
Having these requirements in mind, I would be very interested to have your feedback on the following questions :
Would you store the 100Kbytes of data / user in the session cache or would you query the 1 billion records table ?
Do you think the django / PostgreSQL stack is a good choice ?
Which hosting services would you recommend (Heroku / Amazon, GAE, ...) ?
Thanks a lot for your feedback !
Definitely cache as much as you can.
Yes, they are both well tested and used in production.
This really depends on your requirements and your price sensitivity. Note that Amazon is Iaas, meaning that they host infrastructure, but you'll need to manage your own stack (OS, frameworks, databases). Heroku/GAE are PaaS, meaning they manage the whole SW stack - you just upload code and they make is scale. GAE supports django but not Postgresql (it comes with it's own datastore).
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have the following requirement. I have with me a database containing the contact and address details of at least 2000 members of my school alumni organization. We want to store all that information in a relation model so that
This data can be created and edited on demand.
This data is always backed up and should be simple to restore in case the master copy becomes unusable.
All sensitive personal information residing in this database is guaranteed to be available only to authorized users.
This database won't be online in the first 6 months. It will become online only after a website is built on top of it.
I am not a DBA and I don't want to spend time doing things like backups. I thought Amazon's RDS with it's automatic backup facility was the perfect solution for our needs. The only problem is that being a voluntary organization we cannot spare the monthly $100 to $150 fees this service demands.
So my question is, are there any less costlier alternatives to Amazon's RDS?
In your case of just contact and address data I would choose Amazon SimpleDB. I know SimpleDB might not be suitable for a large number of tables with relationships and all, but for your kind of data I think SimpleDB is sufficient. And costs is much much cheaper than Amazon RDS.
I also wanted to use RDS, but the smallest db size costs $80 p/month.
With out a bit more info I may be way off base here. but 2000 names addresses etc. is not a large DB and I would have thought that the possible use of Amazons RDS was a bit "overkill" to say the least.
Depending on how (and who) you want view edit etc. there are a number of free or almost free alternatives.
One method may be to set up /use a hosting package that has something like phpMyAdmin linked to a mySQL DB. Doing this it is possible to access and edit etc. the DB without having a website front end. Not pretty (like a website front end) but practical. A good host should also back up for you.
Another is to look at Google Documents. OK not really a database more a spread sheet, but very much on the lines of Excel. You can share Google docs with invited people and even set up a small website via Google Docs. This is a free method, but may not be that practical depending on your needs.
Have you taken a look at Microsoft SQL Azure? You can use it free for something like 90 days and then if you only need a 1GB db it would only be about $10 a month.
You mention backup so I thought I would talk about that as well. They way SQL Azure works is that it automatically creates 2 additional copies of your database on different machines in the data center. If one of the machines or db's become unavailable it automatically fails over to one of the other db's.
If you need anything above that you can also use the copy command to backup the database.
You can check
http://www.enciva.com/postgresql9-hosting.htm
and
http://www.acugis.com/postgresql-hosting.htm
They work for Postgres and MySQL.
For a frankly tiny db of that size I'd seriously look at http://www.sqlite.org/
it's inprocess, easy to constantly .dump off to S3 and you can use update hooks to keep checkpoints after updates.
backups/restores are almost the equivalent of windows batchfiles and wgets
good encryption using http://sqlcipher.net/
standard OS Filesystem and user level ACLs control security.
running a file backed db makes sense given the fragility of a normal EC2 backed RDBMS to EBS gremlins.
there are exclusions from to SQL92 (no real showstoppers), but given the project cost sensitivity and the RPO and RTO's of an alumni database, I reckon it's a good bet.