3 ms·

+1. This is the reason I pay for Amazon RDS/Aurora, where the price difference versus the same EC2 instances is even greater. Sure I could set up a database...

+1. This is the reason I pay for Amazon RDS/Aurora, where the price difference versus the same EC2 instances is even greater. Sure I could set up a database... and replication to another database... and script scheduled snapshots... and build monitoring and fault tolerance against all the ways things can break... but by the time I've set all that up, I've wasted a week or more building servers instead of building a business.

matt2000 11y ago
Are you using aurora? How's your experience been so far? It sounds interesting but I haven't heard much real world experience yet.
- dangrossman 11y ago
  I'm running W3Counter on it now. That's ~100GB of data and a couple hundred queries per second. It's about equal read/write load with one insert and one select for every page view I log. Nothing you can't do on a single server, but it's all I can talk about. I was renting two ~$300/mo servers at Softlayer to run MySQL (Percona), with one as a backup + failover + to run my monthly browser/OS market share reports against without killing the website by overloading the main server. I regularly spiked high loads that killed latency anyway this spring. I was going to have to upgrade soon anyway, so I decided to try out Aurora during the free preview period, and migrated everything over there one weekend. Turns out a single R3.Large instance (the smallest) was more than sufficient. It's sitting at under 25% CPU and 50% memory usage right now, which means there's plenty of room to grow too. I'd say performance is as good or better than native MySQL based on that. I'm paying less now than I did for the two servers, and get more for it, with free multi-AZ replication, nightly snapshots, and the ability to spin up a live replica in just a few minutes to run backups/large reports against, then shut down and only pay for the hour.
  - bdcravens 11y ago
    That's awesome; thanks for sharing. To me, the managed aspect where I don't have to worry about monitoring the hard drive space is a big win. How long does it typically take for the live replica to come online?

matt2000 11y ago

Are you using aurora? How's your experience been so far? It sounds interesting but I haven't heard much real world experience yet.

dangrossman 11y ago
I'm running W3Counter on it now. That's ~100GB of data and a couple hundred queries per second. It's about equal read/write load with one insert and one select for every page view I log. Nothing you can't do on a single server, but it's all I can talk about. I was renting two ~$300/mo servers at Softlayer to run MySQL (Percona), with one as a backup + failover + to run my monthly browser/OS market share reports against without killing the website by overloading the main server. I regularly spiked high loads that killed latency anyway this spring. I was going to have to upgrade soon anyway, so I decided to try out Aurora during the free preview period, and migrated everything over there one weekend. Turns out a single R3.Large instance (the smallest) was more than sufficient. It's sitting at under 25% CPU and 50% memory usage right now, which means there's plenty of room to grow too. I'd say performance is as good or better than native MySQL based on that. I'm paying less now than I did for the two servers, and get more for it, with free multi-AZ replication, nightly snapshots, and the ability to spin up a live replica in just a few minutes to run backups/large reports against, then shut down and only pay for the hour.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  That's awesome; thanks for sharing. To me, the managed aspect where I don't have to worry about monitoring the hard drive space is a big win. How long does it typically take for the live replica to come online?