# Shadow device-like configuration?

**URL:** <https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/shadow-device-like-configuration/4411>\
**Category:** Using FoundationDB\
**Tags:** performance\
**Created:** [April 3, 2024, 2:57pm UTC](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/shadow-device-like-configuration/4411 "2024-04-03T14:57:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gm42](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/foundationdb/user_avatar/forums.foundationdb.org/gm42/32/1784_2.png) [@gm42](https://forums.foundationdb.org/u/gm42)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2024, 2:57pm UTC](https://forums.foundationdb.org/t/shadow-device-like-configuration/4411/1 "2024-04-03T14:57:39Z")

</div>

Hi there,

I am evaluating options to deploy a high-performance cluster and take advantage of [instance storage available on AWS](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/InstanceStorage.html); the corresponding concept in Aerospike is [shadow devices](https://aerospike.com/docs/cloud/kubernetes/operator/Shadow-device).

What I would ideally like to achieve is:

- storing 3 replica copies for all data, one of them on the NVMe instance store
- reads prefer routing through the NVMe-powered storage process
- bonus: somehow tell FoundationDB that the copy stored on the NVMe instance is in a “null” zone which is never fault tolerant

Can something like this be achieved, or this is not an idea which could be translated in something useful in FoundationDB clusters?

I am exploring various options, so thanks in advance for any input!