- Più recenti
- Maggior numero di voti
- Maggior numero di commenti
From the following text this issue appears to focus on high availability.
The company wants to be able to scale to meet future application capacity demands and to ensure high availability across all three Availability Zones.
Therefore, we need to think in terms of whether memcached or redis is more highly available.
In the case of Redis, unlike memcached, the cluster manages the node endpoints.
This means that if a node fails, it can automatically switch to a different node and replicate the data.
Minimizes downtime due to failover in the event of failure.
In other words, we thought that A would be the correct answer in this case because Redis is more capable of establishing high availability.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/Clusters.html
https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/redis-features/?nc1=h_ls
The comparison between Redis and Memcached in this document may be easier to understand.
You can see that "High availability (replication)" in the table in the documentation is "Yes" for Redis.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/mem-ug/SelectEngine.html
Contenuto pertinente
- AWS UFFICIALEAggiornata 2 anni fa
- AWS UFFICIALEAggiornata 4 mesi fa
- AWS UFFICIALEAggiornata 3 anni fa
- AWS UFFICIALEAggiornata 10 mesi fa