undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmacspoofing6mo ago0 comments

>You don't. When your server crashes, your availability is zero.

As your business needs grow, you can start layering complexity on top. The point is you don't start at 11 with a overly complex architecture.

In your example, if your server crashes, just make sure you have some sort of automatic restart. In practice that may mean a downtime of seconds for your 12 users. Is that more complexity? Sure - but not much. If you need to take your service down for maintenance, you notify your 12 users and schedule it for 2am ... etc.

Later you could create a secondary cluster and stick a load-balancer in-front. You could also add a secondary replicated PostgreSQL instance. So the monolith/postgres architecture can actually take you far as your business grows.

0 comments

BillinghamJ6mo ago

Changing/layering architecture adds risk. If you've got a standard way of working you can easily throw in on day one whose fundamentals then don't need to be changed for years, that's way lower risk, easier, faster

It is common for founding engineers to start with a preexisting way of working that they import from their previous more-scaled company, and that approach is refined and compounded over time

It does mean starting with more than is necessary at the start, but that doesn't mean it has to be particularly complex. It means you start with heaps of already-solved problems that you simply never have to deal with, allowing focus on the product goals and deep technical investments that need to be specific to the new company

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

BillinghamJ6mo ago

It is common for founding engineers to start with a preexisting way of working that they import from their previous more-scaled company, and that approach is refined and compounded over time

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse