You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have a lot of dynamo tables, most of which are idle (no consumption) most of the time.
I was considering that if there is no consumption we can provision as low as 1 or 10, but in the event of any comsumption set the min-provisioned to something relatively high like 100 to 1000. The exponential scaling works well beyond that, but it can take a while to get from say, 10 to 1000 even doubling the provisioning each step.
So, as a proposal, in addition to min-provisioned and max-provisioned also support idle-provisioned as an alternative to min-provisioned when there is no consumption. If idle-provisioned is not specified, continue using min-provisioned, as before.
This would allow us to increase our min-provisioned and reduce costs with idle-provisioned at a fraction of min-provisioned.
Any concerns, objections or alternative formulations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
nigels-com
changed the title
Extend (min|max)-provisioned-* to (idle|min|max)-provisioned-*
Proposal: Extend (min|max)-provisioned-* to (idle|min|max)-provisioned-*
May 18, 2018
We have a lot of dynamo tables, most of which are idle (no consumption) most of the time.
I was considering that if there is no consumption we can provision as low as 1 or 10, but in the event of any comsumption set the min-provisioned to something relatively high like 100 to 1000. The exponential scaling works well beyond that, but it can take a while to get from say, 10 to 1000 even doubling the provisioning each step.
So, as a proposal, in addition to min-provisioned and max-provisioned also support idle-provisioned as an alternative to min-provisioned when there is no consumption. If idle-provisioned is not specified, continue using min-provisioned, as before.
This would allow us to increase our min-provisioned and reduce costs with idle-provisioned at a fraction of min-provisioned.
Any concerns, objections or alternative formulations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: