2 Antworten
- Neueste
- Die meisten Stimmen
- Die meisten Kommentare
4
In general, below two principles can be applied to any serverless vs provisioned deployment
Go for serverless, when
- Applications that do not expect steady state and constant traffic, for Example, dev or test or adhoc project
- Application that expects steep spike or unpredictable demand
If application expects to be steady state with predictable demand then go for Redshift Cluster with RI's
beantwortet vor 2 Jahren
4
As per Redshift Serverless documentation:
Amazon Redshift Serverless is ideal when it is difficult to predict compute needs such as variable workloads, periodic workloads with idle time, and steady-state workloads with spikes. This approach is also a good fit for ad-hoc analytics needs that need to get started quickly and for test and development environments.
Provisioned Redshift on the other hand may be suited for steady predictable loads.
beantwortet vor 2 Jahren
Thank you, does RS Serverless support Spectrum?
Relevanter Inhalt
AWS OFFICIALAktualisiert vor 2 Jahren- AWS OFFICIALAktualisiert vor einem Jahr
- AWS OFFICIALAktualisiert vor 2 Jahren
- AWS OFFICIALAktualisiert vor 2 Jahren
Based on above answer it makes sense to use serverless in these conditions of traffic as it provides auto-scaling.
But, what is the reason to choose provisioned cluster when the traffic is steady and predictable? What advantage does provisioned cluster give over serverless to be considered better when auto-scaling is not required?