3 ms·
AWS Aurora has been working well for me in general.
by cube2222 4y ago
AWS Aurora has been working well for me in general.
- baq 4y agoHow painful is the cost?
- throwawaythekey 4y agoIt's been a while now but we saved about 10-100x moving from aurora to dynamo for a pure/simplish OLTP use case. Lost a lot of flexibility but the aurora costs were going to send us under. We also had a few issues where aurora was giving us *incorrect query results* and aws support were not helpful. Most of the issues were denied, even with simple reproductions, and then got fixed years later (~2-3) after we had given up. We still use it today but stay away from cutting edge features, unusual query patterns, and high volume use cases. Having said all that, SQL still seems like the correct choice for getting an MVP out quickly.
- phamilton 4y agoNot OP, but a big Aurora fan. Not that bad actually, but it varies by use case. Reasons aurora can be cheaper than you think: 1) Autoscaling. Adding a new reader takes 15 minutes. Instead of provisioning for peak traffic and paying for it 24/7, run an extra reader for a few hours each day. 2) Metered IO. Aurora IO can handle 400k+ iops when needed. Or it can hum along at 100 iops. You pay only for what you use, you don't have to provision for peak load 24/7. Switching to Aurora saved us money over vanilla RDS. Self hosting postgres may be cheaper, but not by as much as would first appear.
- benji-york 4y agoHere's a cost calculator: https://calculator.aws/#/addService/RDSPostgreSQL https://calculator.aws/#/addService/RDSPostgreSQL My rule of thumb is about $1,000 per month for a reasonably large DB in RDS.