Good morning. Today we will take the terms “domains”, “fault”, and “update”, and make it sound more sophisticateder because competitive advantage.
- Azure marketing people, probably
I mean, it’s good they have thought of this. It’s even on the exam. But really, as the user of Azure, I don’t need to care about how they power their racks and in what order they are restarted. I care about stability of my VMs, but it’s ok to leave the mechanics of fault-tolerance to be a black box. For the most part, it would suffice for me to know that if I launch a group of 3 machines, I’ll have almost 3 machines running most of the time. I don’t have any control over this anyway, so those “domains” are trivia and implementation details.
That aside, Microsoft’s general aversion to visual presentation of data rears its ugly head here once again. They could have designed the UX around this as a nice grid, with current status of each slot in the fault/update domain, etc. Could’ve even put this next to each VM. But no. Everything must look like a spreadsheet.
The important takeaway of the entire feature: You should, for best availability vs cost effectiveness, try to horizontally scale your VMs in sets of 5:
N % 5 == 0. That’s how many update domains exist.
N < 5 - and you’re not utilizing the full fault-tolerance potential.
5 < N < 10 - and you are overprovisioning some of those update domains.