Redshift ra3.xlplus - Disadvantages of single node?

Question

Hi,

We are currently debating whether to invest in a single node or 2-node ra3.xlplus Redshift cluster. We are a small company with limited usage right now, but need room to grow our analytics capabilities significantly over the next year and require the data sharing features of the ra3 node type. What reason(s) (if any) would there be to us picking a 2-node cluster now, rather than starting with a single-node cluster? I wondered if the leader vs. compute node aspect may come into it?

Accepted Answer

As per Redshift best practices for well-architected frame work, two nodes are the recommended approach for business-critical or production environments. When you have a single node Ra3 cluster, your leader node and compute node are the same, and any issue with a node may require additional downtime.

1 node, RA3. Xlpus also has some other limitations, like only classic resizing and the limited total number of total tables supported.
If you are concerned with cost, you may want to look into

1.	Reserved instances in Redshift cost between 30 and 60% less than on-demand instances.
a.	[AWS-Pricing-calculator]() 
2.	 Based on the usage pattern, Redshift Serverless may be cost-efficient as it will auto-pause.
a.	https://aws.amazon.com/redshift/redshift-serverless/

Redshift ra3.xlplus - Disadvantages of single node?

相關內容