Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by deeblering4 1716 days ago
Because it's significantly cheaper and diversifies your presence across multiple providers.

It's a good idea to split origin and CDN, this way requests can be served from cache while origin is down or overloaded.

Plus I'd challenge the suggestions that S3 and CDN are a tiny portion of the infrastructure. For a lot of sites it's a significant chunk, things remaining wouldn't be many, maybe compute, DNS, and CI.
1 comments
sokoloff 1716 days ago
> diversifies your presence across multiple providers.

In this case, for most AWS/CF customers, that diversification is of the "downtime on either represents downtime for their customer" variety. (I'm still a fan of this offering and the pressure it put on the current high price of egress bandwidth, of course.)

link
deeblering4 1716 days ago
If S3 was down would R2 be down for the customer?

If R2 was down could you re-route back to S3?

Diversifying infrastructure provides additional options to mitigate outages.

link
sokoloff 1716 days ago
If S3 was down, R2 would be up but the rest of your app on AWS would probably be down in the affected (based on the cascading failures in prior S3 outages) so most AWS users are going to be down.

If R2 was down and you didn’t rely on anything else that relied on R2, sure, you could repoint DNS and/or issue S3-direct URLs and then clean it up on the way back out.

“Additional options” doesn’t come without “additional complexity” and that complexity has a cost.

R2’s a great cost-saving move here; I don’t think it’s a reliability improvement generally.

link