3 ms·

Amazon Aurora Backtrack? https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/05/amazon-aurora-backtrack-can-move-a-database-back-in-time/ https://aws.amazon.com/ab

Amazon Aurora Backtrack? https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/05/amazon-aurora-backtrack-can-move-a-database-back-in-time/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/05/amazon-au...

verelo 7y ago
Thats a great feature, if you're on Aurora. In my case these were MySQL RDS instances created ranging from 2012 and beyond. Migration of the app to Aurora is possible (after testing), but it would be a much larger change.
- otterley 7y ago
  We recommend you do migrate - lots of great features in Aurora while remaining 100% MySQL compatible. (EDIT: I should have said "wire and protocol compatible" as opposed to "100%". I regret the error.)
  - verelo 7y ago
    Would you sign your first born over to me on that promise? Obviously I'm joking, but i have in the past got nervous that there might be issues with this claim. I.e. previously i found that the MySQL welcome banner that Aurora gave me claimed it was a very specific version, but when i tested a bug fixed in a previous MySQL version (a weird edge cases for us around transactions) it failed the test. I'm worried that while the goal is for it to be 100% compatible, the number is closer to 99.X% and that means the migration isn't a small amount of work to verify.
    - otterley 7y ago
      Definitely send us a support ticket if you find a regression in Aurora/MySQL's behavior for a specific point release.
      - verelo 7y ago
        That is what I did back then, i actually got a great response and the explanation of why this issue existed was valid. Not a real concern, I just don't love the way Amazon suggests "use Aurora" all the time when the real issue from the customers perspective is "Other non-Aurora RDS offerings are lacking features, and we have to keep using them - at least for now".
  - PeterZaitsev 7y ago
    Aurora compatibility with MySQL is great. But as any 100% compatibility claims this one is bullshit. You can get close but you never really quite hit 100% https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/Aurora.AuroraMySQL.Overview.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide... The following features are supported in MySQL 5.7.12 but are currently not supported in Aurora MySQL 5.7: Group replication plugin Increased page size InnoDB buffer pool loading at startup InnoDB full-text parser plugin Multisource replication Online buffer pool resizing Password validation plugin Query rewrite plugins Replication filtering The CREATE TABLESPACE SQL statement X Protocol
    - mritun 7y ago
      Those are all irrelevant for Aurora - which is a fully hosted, natively replicated database.
  - sandGorgon 7y ago
    This is something we face as well on the postgresql side. We don't want to migrate. And we want to maintain large number of multi-terabyte backups (that are RESTORABLE) in Glacier for compliance reasons. There is orders of magnitude of cost difference between snappshots and Glacier. Also i cant maintain beyond 30 days.

Amazon Aurora Backtrack? https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/05/amazon-aurora-backtrack-can-move-a-database-back-in-time/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/05/amazon-au...

verelo 7y ago

Thats a great feature, if you're on Aurora. In my case these were MySQL RDS instances created ranging from 2012 and beyond. Migration of the app to Aurora is possible (after testing), but it would be a much larger change.

otterley 7y ago
We recommend you do migrate - lots of great features in Aurora while remaining 100% MySQL compatible. (EDIT: I should have said "wire and protocol compatible" as opposed to "100%". I regret the error.)
- verelo 7y ago
  Would you sign your first born over to me on that promise? Obviously I'm joking, but i have in the past got nervous that there might be issues with this claim. I.e. previously i found that the MySQL welcome banner that Aurora gave me claimed it was a very specific version, but when i tested a bug fixed in a previous MySQL version (a weird edge cases for us around transactions) it failed the test. I'm worried that while the goal is for it to be 100% compatible, the number is closer to 99.X% and that means the migration isn't a small amount of work to verify.
  - otterley 7y ago
    Definitely send us a support ticket if you find a regression in Aurora/MySQL's behavior for a specific point release.
    - verelo 7y ago
      That is what I did back then, i actually got a great response and the explanation of why this issue existed was valid. Not a real concern, I just don't love the way Amazon suggests "use Aurora" all the time when the real issue from the customers perspective is "Other non-Aurora RDS offerings are lacking features, and we have to keep using them - at least for now".
- PeterZaitsev 7y ago
  Aurora compatibility with MySQL is great. But as any 100% compatibility claims this one is bullshit. You can get close but you never really quite hit 100% https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/Aurora.AuroraMySQL.Overview.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide... The following features are supported in MySQL 5.7.12 but are currently not supported in Aurora MySQL 5.7: Group replication plugin Increased page size InnoDB buffer pool loading at startup InnoDB full-text parser plugin Multisource replication Online buffer pool resizing Password validation plugin Query rewrite plugins Replication filtering The CREATE TABLESPACE SQL statement X Protocol
  - mritun 7y ago
    Those are all irrelevant for Aurora - which is a fully hosted, natively replicated database.
- sandGorgon 7y ago
  This is something we face as well on the postgresql side. We don't want to migrate. And we want to maintain large number of multi-terabyte backups (that are RESTORABLE) in Glacier for compliance reasons. There is orders of magnitude of cost difference between snappshots and Glacier. Also i cant maintain beyond 30 days.