3 ms·
I must admit I'm very curious as to what real-world thing(s) translate to 35TB of stored data (that presumably isn't large blobs, like video or ML models). (An
by exikyut 5y ago
I must admit I'm very curious as to what real-world thing(s) translate to 35TB of stored data (that presumably isn't large blobs, like video or ML models).
(And oh wow I just realized the billing must be amazing...)
- cutthegrass2 5y agoYep, the AWS cost footprint of this system is eye-watering. The compute spend is 2x the RDS spend! Can't say too much, but it's Financial Services related.
- exikyut 5y agoAh, a gigantic time series event firehose. (That was what I was curious about.) I guess this cues the stereotypical "have you looked at kdb+" question, then, which you've probably already fielded :) (https://kx.com https://kx.com) IIUC, kdb+ does in fact have a real DB hiding in it, and it's not all just "weird programming language" - but it does seem to require/prefer a reasonable amount of buy-in to the way it does things to be valuable. I guess the lateral question is whether its performance obsession extends to smaller on-disk footprint, and whether the savings would be worth throwing out all the the existing Aurora integration work. (Answer: very probably not.)