Scale up as you grow — whether you're running one virtual machine or ten thousand.

From GPU-powered inference and Kubernetes to managed databases and storage, get everything you need to build, scale, and deploy intelligent applications.

This textbox defaults to using Markdown to format your answer.
You can type !ref in this text area to quickly search our full set of tutorials, documentation & marketplace offerings and insert the link!
These answers are provided by our Community. If you find them useful, show some love by clicking the heart. If you run into issues leave a comment, or add your own answer to help others.
To me it appears that:
When you have a load balanced setup it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a “cold standby” just sitting there waiting for the “active” one to fail - You’re paying to have the droplet running, you might as well have each of them serve 1/n of your traffic.
(Obviously It depends heavily on the level of control you have over the code that generates your status. If it’s super expensive to run you might not want to run it at full force on 2 droplets - but maybe it’s not that intensive)
Thanks for your reply. The point is not load balancing, but failover; i.e. having redundancy. In this case a passive node (cold standby) is exactly what’s needed. Some applications are important enough to justify placing them on standby. Note, the backup droplet will continue to receive the same feed as the primary; but not any requests – that is, until the primary fails.