5 ms·
If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep
by dstaley 8y ago
If I'm reading the pricing page correctly, DocumentDB would run a _minimum_ of $200/month. That's for the smallest instance and no storage or I/O. Kind of steep if you ask me.
- imaginenore 8y agoAWS pricing is so strange. They give you 25GB of DynamoDB for free and charge 25 cents per million reads (under 4K, i think). $200 minimum means almost no indie developer will even try it.
- a13n 8y agoYeah, that's pricy. They're definitely not going after early-stage startups then. But if you have a medium-sized data set (eg. 50+ GB), this is definitely competitively priced. More RAM, storage, compute than Mongo Atlas and Compose for less money. Here's hoping they introduce cheaper options!
- orf 8y ago50GB is a really small data set.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- a13n 8y agoEh, by what measure? Realistically it's probably bigger than 90% of all Mongo datasets. It's tiny if you're a massive company and it's massive if you're a tiny startup.
- djohnston 8y agoin my experience it qualifies as "medium"
- orf 8y agoIf it can be stuck in a sqlite database and run on a developer laptop, then no, it is not medium by any standard. Please elaborate why you think 50Gb is anything other than a small dataset that can fit in memory on any half-decent server though.
- djohnston 8y ago[edit] in the spirit of not being a condescending tool to you, i'll replace my original reply with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail
- privateSFacct 8y agoI'm assuming this is a joke. You can run databases that size without any of the fancy scalability stuff - no sharding no anything. I'd actually recommend that, it's makes admin super easy!
- kstrauser 8y agoA recent work Slack chat had a dev asking what a particular table contained. They were going through our data inventory and found a randomly-named table 18TB in size. When I ran "select count()" against it, I got back 5,325,451,020,708 rows (that's a copy-and-paste). 50GB isn't trivial, but it's utterly manageable.
- Aeolun 8y agoIt seems a bit wrong if you have a 18TB table but no idea what it contains...
- kstrauser 8y agoIt was a temp table that we hadn't garbage collected yet. We don't make a habit of leaving that much junk data around, but it bumped our monthly storage bill several percent, not like tripled it.
- wpietri 8y agoIs an argument based on the premise that relative terms have absolute meanings a good use of people's time here?
- rafaelturk 8y agoBesides that AWS will charge per transaction (at 0.2 per million) outrageous given that you already pay per instance. Correct pricing strategy needs to be per request or per instance, AWS is charging for both
- mabbo 8y agoThe correct pricing strategy of any product is "whatever the customer is willing to pay for it". If you feel the price is too steep for your use-case, then don't buy it.
- LamaOfRuin 8y agoThat's rarely actually true for anyone that wants to operate for more than a short time period. There are significant costs to gouging your customers. Anything from it being illegal, to it encouraging competition and your customers being motivated to actively flee you and shit on your reputation. The correct pricing strategy for people that don't have a long term enforceable monopoly is "whatever most customers are willing to reasonably happily pay"
- kllvql 8y agoI think you've hit on what always bothers me about this sentiment. It is obvious that at any point in time you can charge the maximum customers are willing to pay, but that allows for disruption through the channels like competition. The opposite where you charge the minimum to continue providing the goods or services seems optimal, though, leads to a company with zero profits that is unattractive to investment. Is there any literature on how to identify the optimal point of "whatever customers are willing to reasonably happily pay"? Businesses successfully exist on many points in the spectrum of zero profits to most profits the market will bear, but I'd be interested in anything discussing optimality. [Edit] Amazon employee working in Physical Consumer (not AWS). Asking out of personal curiosity.
- LamaOfRuin 8y ago
- Trisell 8y agoWe were paying $5k a month for Atlas. So while it's not 'cheap' for a hosted solution it's cheaper. And the autoscale and RR is better DR is super configurable. And then there is this line. 'Together with optimizations like advanced query processing, connection pooling, and optimized recovery and rebuild, Amazon DocumentDB achieves twice the throughput of currently available MongoDB managed services.`
- rafaelturk 8y agoCan you please elaborate? This was launched today, you had access to the new feature in advance?
- geofft 8y agoMongoDB Atlas is the name of the cloud service run by MongoDB themselves, with which Amazon DocumentDB competes. https://www.mongodb.com/cloud/atlas https://www.mongodb.com/cloud/atlas
- owenmarshall 8y agoNot OP, but that wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise. As customers make product requests to AWS they can be tapped to test upcoming launches - anything from pre-release testing to very early alphas.
- jon-wood 8y agoI can confirm that this is very much a thing that they do. We have an account manager able to bump feature requests over to the appropriate product managers, and have been involved in pre-release testing of features that we expressed interest in.
- Trisell 8y agoAs others have said we had MongoDB Atlas. And it is basically mongodb ran in aws with a pretty interface to do basic things like whitelist ips and another such functions.
- ma2rten 8y agoSeems to be really aimed at businesses which want to get off of MongoDB desperately.
- Aeolun 8y agoSo they’ll have a huge target market.
- jshen 8y agoI’m not a fan of mongo, but I’ve run a fairly sizable enterprise platform on it for nearly a decade and we haven’t had any major issues that would make replacing it an urgent desire.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoOnce there is AWS version, it seems like a matter of time before it becomes the safe choice. Nobody got fired for using AWS.
- threeseed 8y agoNot really at all. It's targeted at enterprises like mine who currently use MongoDB on premise and are looking for a managed solution. The advantage of AWS over Atlas is you can use the same security and governance approaches e.g. IAM policies, ADFS/SAML integration, Cloudwatch/Cloudtrail etc.
- spydum 8y agoExactly- atlas kills me without any type of SSO options for the control plane. Also I feel that they HAD to offer this to counter Azure CosmoDB