2 ms·

We are using AWS Aurora (non serverless) and getting crushed by IOPS charges. We do very little caching in our app, which makes the architecture simple, but the

We are using AWS Aurora (non serverless) and getting crushed by IOPS charges. We do very little caching in our app, which makes the architecture simple, but the downside is we end up relying on DB-level caching implicitly. And so when the DB instance has enough memory, IOPS are modest. But once we outgrown it, we have to scale compute up just to get more RAM or else we get destroyed on IOPS. Seems like from a cost standpoint Neon does a good job of avoiding EBS entirely and thus this particular problem would be sidestepped. Is that right?

ldoughty 4y ago
from the design I've seen, the user-dependent data is mostly in S3. EBS should only have a minimal involvement -- probably only used for active data (waiting to be written, or perhaps cached data to safe an S3 call for recently requested data) Looking at the design they are going for, I expect they can scale horizontally really well. I'm really looking forward to this as a low-cost hobbyist DB
- nikita 4y ago
  Yes Aurora gets really expensive on IOPs. They basically charge you for pulling pages from their own page servers. In their design they collocate page server and safekeeper functionality. I believe we will be cheaper in this case yes.