The workaround AWS support proposed was to reserve 2x capacity so we wouldn't run into this issue on subsequent deploys.
The workaround AWS support proposed was to reserve 2x capacity so we wouldn't run into this issue on subsequent deploys.
The main usability problem is that they don't tell you when that will be the case. It used to be the case when scaling up instances which was completely surprising. It's not the case anymore for scale up, so it's improving.
We bitch and moan about Google labeling everything "beta"(or even "alpha"), but the beta moniker would be appropriate here.
Thats pretty lame of them to make you pay them more money instead of functioning properly.
2. We ran a fairly large cluster with a large amount of i3.xlarge
3. One AZ in us-west-1 didn't have enough capacity of that SKU . The other AZ did, but this doesn't help if you have a multi-AZ deployment.
4. We switched to EBS-based instances after this
Or switch to a AB like deploy? (deploy 5% or so, test against 5% from original deploy and decide on future).
Doing a Blue/Green deployment setup costs 1.003x assuming a 5 minute switchover once a day. Being able to provision an extra server instance for a few minutes is kinda the whole point of moving to "the cloud"
I remember doing capacity planning like that for dynamo - but elastic search might be different.
This isn't the customer's choice. The customer does not want this.
As the article talks about, AWS Elasticsearch isn't actually elastic. On standard Elasticsearch, you can add and remove nodes at will and it will automatically handle rebalancing. AWS Elasticsearch can't do that. It has to spin up a new cluster of the desired size, copy everything over, and then turn off the old cluster. That is a form of blue/green deploy.
> So why wouldn't you reserve 2x?
Why would you want to pay double all the time because AWS can't use Elasticsearch correctly? AWS should foot the bill to ensure that everything works properly within their broken implementation when something requires the cluster to be duplicated and redeployed, not the customers.
> Or switch to a AB like deploy?
To reiterate: this isn't their choice. AWS forces this inefficient methodology on users of AWS Elasticsearch, which is why the article strongly recommends against using AWS Elasticsearch.