3 ms·

It seems like napkin math could have alerted them to the potential worst case scenario costs. EC2 instance + db instance per customer alone made my jaw drop. Mu

It seems like napkin math could have alerted them to the potential worst case scenario costs. EC2 instance + db instance per customer alone made my jaw drop. Multiply this by 1,000, 10,000, 50,000 and costs are really regrettable. Edit: I know most database applications like Postgres can handle multiple databases. Does RDS let you have more than 1 database per instance?

dragonwriter 7y ago
> EC2 instance + db instance per customer alone made my jaw drop. Especially since the DB is SQL Server; the license costs are death for that. An open source DB would save you a lot there if you have a real need for a DB instance per customer architecture.
poxrud 7y ago
EC2 instance + db instance per customer alone made my jaw drop No, they mention in the article that they were using 30 databases per DB instance. Not sure why they used 30 when the RDS FAQ mentions[1] that for SQL Server you can have up to 100 databases per instance. However if they would have used another database engine such as MySQL or PostgreSQL, they would not have had any limits to DB's/Schama's per instance and could have had an order of magnitude of cost savings. Using something like AWS Schema Conversion Tool[2] makes it easy to convert between different DB engines, and at a spend of $100K /month they could have easily afforded to pay a consultant to do the migration for them. [1]https://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/ [2]https://docs.aws.amazon.com/SchemaConversionTool/latest/userguide/CHAP_Welcome.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/SchemaConversionTool/latest/user...