8 ms·
This article is already pretty outdated. According to Jim Scharf with DynamoDB On-Demand you don't really have to care anymore about DynamoDB's implementation d
by Dunedan 8y ago
This article is already pretty outdated. According to Jim Scharf with DynamoDB On-Demand you don't really have to care anymore about DynamoDB's implementation details, like partitioning: https://twitter.com/jim_scharf/status/1069056907686465537 https://twitter.com/jim_scharf/status/1069056907686465537
- thekozmo 8y agoThere are tons of limitation on the on-demand, certainly it cannot go to extent of 120k ops. Check their example, they toy with a tiny workload.
- Dunedan 8y agoAs far as I know there is no upper limit of requests for DynamoDB. There is a default limit of 40.000 requests per second for provisioned capacity as well as for on-demand capacity, but you can get that increased upon request. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/Limits.html#default-limits-throughput https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg... You might also want to read about the scaling behavior of DynamoDB On-Demand (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/HowItWorks.ReadWriteCapacityMode.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...). Of course you can't immediately scale to any arbitrary request rate, but the way it's implemented sounds fine to me. So do you have a source for your claim?
- thekozmo 8y agoMy claim is only an assumption. However, after our experience with not reaching the reserve limit plus the example they provided that didn't scale to a million of iops lead my to this guesstimate. We on the other hand have plenty of examples how to reach a million iops per server with a simple data model. But ignore me, just give Scylla a try! Our support is awesome too
- otterley 8y agoIt's not reasonable as a competing/cooperating vendor to claim that there are "tons of limitations" on DynamoDB on demand, and then in the next sentence disclaim it saying your previous assertion was "only an assumption."
- PeterCorless 8y agoGood to know!