4 ms·
Better performance, lower jitter, easy scalability. There's really no reason to not use Aurora.
by sorenbs 10y ago
Better performance, lower jitter, easy scalability. There's really no reason to not use Aurora.
- Rezo 10y agoAurora is more expensive, more so on the high-end, so it's not entirely clear that it is the best choice for all applications: db.r3.8xlarge: RDS Aurora $4.640/h, RDS MySQL $3.780/h, RDS PostgreSQL $3.980/h
- dhd415 10y agoFor many installations, an Aurora read replica can eliminate the need for a multi-AZ master instance which cuts the cost of your master instance in half.
- koolba 10y ago> Aurora is more expensive, more so on the high-end, so it's not entirely clear that it is the best choice for all applications: > db.r3.8xlarge: RDS Aurora $4.640/h, RDS MySQL $3.780/h, RDS PostgreSQL $3.980/h Based on your numbers the difference in pricing between Aurora and Postgres ($4.64 - $3.98) x 24 * 30 = $475/mo. To the company using a db.r3.8xlarge, which has 32-cores and 244 GB of RAM, that's not even a rounding error.
- fweespeech 10y agoThe failover guarantees with RDS Aurora are substantially better as long as you have 1+ read replicas. That alone is worth the difference imo.