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

I like RDS because I don't have to think about backups, replication etc but if I colocate the app server (web server, application code) and the database server on the same machine I see 1-2 orders of magnitude performance improvement in database-intensive apps.

Replication is the same as usual; have another machine setup to replicate onto. The restriction is you can't fan out hundreds of application servers and half a dozen database servers if you need that - but I don't need to.

I haven't done this with clients but I'm doing it with my own (cost-sensitive) side projects and appreciate removing the internal network latency.




I like RDS for the same reason, but I wonder if there's a way you could run Postgres locally, as you suggest, while still using RDS for all the replication/backup side of things? That way the local Postgres management could be pretty minimal and outsource the "annoying bits" to RDS as before. I need to look into the best way to set up something like that.. perhaps pgPool-II.


Would this cope with needing to replicate the web server onto another machine as well, for cloud-level reliability?

Rather than

    web + local db <-----> rds
you end up with

    web + local db <-\
                     |--> rds
    web + local db <-/
At which point the two masters plus a RDS slave is something I don't know if it's feasible.


You might want to check this out then if you are on AWS https://litestream.io/




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

Search: