3 ms·
Spanner is relatively more expensive than something like CloudSQL or BigTable, but brings added reliability, availability, and consistency. There are definitely
by sethvargo 9y ago
Spanner is relatively more expensive than something like CloudSQL or BigTable, but brings added reliability, availability, and consistency. There are definitely more cost-effective solutions for Vault storage, such as the Google Cloud Storage backend, but at the time of this writing, they do not provide the same guarantees as Spanner.
Ultimately it's about your organization's risk tolerance. If a service is non-critical, non-SPOF, perhaps Spanner is overkill. On the other hand, if you have a service that requires immediate global consistency and availability, such as global secrets management, Spanner is a great choice.
To be clear, this post is not saying "use Spanner with Vault"; it's saying "Spanner is now supported as a Vault storage backend for users who need the features it provides".
FD: I work for Google Cloud
- toomuchtodo 9y agoCan you comment on how Spanner differs from AWS’ DynamoDB Global Tables?
- sethvargo 9y agoI'm not incredibly familiar with DynamoDB Global Tables, but a cursory browse of the marketing page, it looks like: 1. DynamoDB Global Table replication is eventually consistent to all regions; Spanner is strongly consistent in all regions 2. Spanner is a schema-based with SQL language support. DynamoDB is a noSQL store. I'm sure there are other differences that I am not aware of. DynamoDB is more closely aligned to the Google Cloud Datastore or Bittable offerings (https://cloud.google.com/free/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-platform https://cloud.google.com/free/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-plat...). You can read more about the use cases for Spanner here: https://cloud.google.com/spanner/ https://cloud.google.com/spanner/. FD: I work for Google Cloud.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThank you! It’s relevant to a project I’m working on; appreciate the reply!