|
|
|
|
|
|
by marclove
5732 days ago
|
|
|
Yea but like you said, since half of them are just for redundancy, they were in effect only running 2 database servers. I must say I find it stunning that a service with that much traffic, especially one with an infrastructure that requires the entire database to be in-memory, would be operating with just 2 database servers running on EC2. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I can't imagine the foresight was any worse than 20/30. |
|
|