May 6, 2022 at 8:34 am
Our architect is set on taking both AMIs and snapshots at a regular interval. His reasoning is that in case the snapshots don’t work, he wants another method to fall back to. I’ve been arguing against this as AMIs are essentially snapshots at their core (minus the drive mappings and permissions) and this would greatly increase our backup cost for no reason. Am I wrong? Does anyone see a reason for doing this?
May 6, 2022 at 9:38 pm
My opinion - his reasoning is garbage. He should be testing the backups to ensure they are valid. If you don't trust the backup when things are running fine, what will you do when management is breathing down your neck in an actual disaster?
The ONLY reason I could see for having both is that an AMI lets you quickly (well, quicker) restore a system that has gone down. A snapshot would allow you to restore the storage to a different location on the same machine in the event of data corruption or data loss without needing to spin up a whole new VM.
BUT, if you want advice from the experts, I would reach out to Amazon and get their feedback on it. Asking on a random forum will get you results that may be biased or based on experience and not best practice. Reaching out to the experts (Amazon in this case) will get you best practice AND supported advice.
The above is all just my opinion on what you should do.
As with all advice you find on a random internet forum - you shouldn't blindly follow it. Always test on a test server to see if there is negative side effects before making changes to live!
I recommend you NEVER run "random code" you found online on any system you care about UNLESS you understand and can verify the code OR you don't care if the code trashes your system.
May 24, 2022 at 8:03 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply