Is it safe to say that , in terms of availability EMR serverless would be a better option than EMR ?

0

I found this https://repost.aws/questions/QUvOaZvA5BT56skWO0iu2kZA/emr-in-2-azs-and-high-availability where it says EMR launch nodes in a single AZ only . Considering there haven't been much changes on this front, is it safe to assume EMR serverless is better in terms of availability (since these nodes are abstracted and multi-AZ would be default ?) .

gefragt vor 4 Monaten149 Aufrufe
1 Antwort
3

Hello,

Considering low-latency, high-throughput, and highly redundant networking, EMR-S also deploys the workers in a given subnet at any given situation. Amazon resources are created in a subnet which is a subset of available IP addresses in an Amazon VPC. For example, a VPC with a /16 netmask has up to 65,536 available IP addresses which can be broken into multiple smaller networks using subnet masks. As an example, you can split this range into two subnets with each using /17 mask and 32,768 available IP addresses. A subnet resides within an Availability Zone and cannot span across zones. As a whole, the AWS global infrastructure is built around AWS Regions and Availability Zones. AWS Regions provide multiple physically separated and isolated Availability Zones, which are connected with low-latency, high-throughput, and highly redundant networking. Please refer this doc for more information[1].

AWS
SUPPORT-TECHNIKER
beantwortet vor 4 Monaten

Du bist nicht angemeldet. Anmelden um eine Antwort zu veröffentlichen.

Eine gute Antwort beantwortet die Frage klar, gibt konstruktives Feedback und fördert die berufliche Weiterentwicklung des Fragenstellers.

Richtlinien für die Beantwortung von Fragen