5 ms·
> > Aurora is I think pretty simple to move away from, since it's just fully compatible Postgres or Mysql. We even use a local postgres for development purposes
by kerkeslager 4y ago
> > Aurora is I think pretty simple to move away from, since it's just fully compatible Postgres or Mysql. We even use a local postgres for development purposes against an Aurora solution.
> Nope. AWS makes it dead simple to move from RDS to Aurora by clicking a button. There's no way to move data from Aurora to RDS short of doing a SQL dump and reloading everything that way. I found this out when my previous employer was looking at moving from RDS to Aurora.
I got a bit of a chuckle out of this. There's no way to move from Aurora to RDS short of... 2 minutes of actual work and a lot of waiting around due to the limitations of the hardware?
I get that it's not as easy as a literal button click, but this isn't vendor lock in.
- tough 4y agoWhat if you have a really big database? Still 2minutes?
- manfre 4y agoI'm intentionally ignoring any of the sarcasm in your comment. The time needed for a db dump is always dependent upon the amount of data. This is true regardless of the db software or where it's running.
- Ensorceled 4y agoI can't think of any project I've worked on where the main data base could be backed up and restored to a different database in "2 minutes" The sarcasm was warranted.
- re-thc 4y agoWith SSO multi-account and 2FA, it'd probably take longer than 2 minutes just to authenticate and configure AWS correctly to get started.
- emodendroket 4y agoIsn’t the suggestion that the “active work” is very little and most of the time you’re just waiting?
- Ensorceled 4y agoWell, the elapsed time is how long I need production to be offline so there are a few more people "just waiting"
- emodendroket 4y agoSure, but you don’t really expect to swap databases with a huge data store without any downtime, do you? I’m not aware of any technology that makes that easy.
- Ensorceled 4y agoThen why are you defending the ridiculous "2 minute" thing? If the CEO asked how long a migration will take would you respond "2 minutes of engineering time"?
- emodendroket 4y agoIn that situation I would guess the one-click tool doesn’t really handle everything you’d need either so I don’t get what the point of the comparison is.
- Ensorceled 4y agoI’m not the person would said it was two minutes.
- emodendroket 4y agoNor am I but if we go back up the claim was that they were making it much easier to get in than get out, but unless you're telling me that the one-click tool somehow solves all the issues of migrating a large production database that's in use the difference between the two is a minuscule amount of active work.
- kerkeslager 4y agoIf only you had read the whole sentence, you might have saved yourself a bit of righteous anger.
- Paul-Craft 4y agoI think you've failed to consider how impractical even doing a SQL dump can be on a large-ish database, forget about the reloading time.
- kerkeslager 4y agoI haven't failed to consider that, you've just failed to read where I explicitly mentioned that. Consider: is that impracticality caused by Amazon creating vendor lock-in? Or is that impracticality caused by the fact that reading terabytes of data from storage, transferring it over the network, and writing it into storage is inherently slow because of the physical limitations of hardware, no matter what vendor you're using? It's a bit odd for me to be in the position of defending Amazon here. I genuinely don't like them, don't use them, and generally do think they're guilty of creating a lot of vendor lock-in. But this is legitimately not an example of any of that.
- Paul-Craft 4y agoI didn't miss where you mentioned it. I missed where you considered it. As in, you know, gave any thought to the practicalities involved.
- kerkeslager 4y agoYou're really claiming you can read my mind to know what I have and have not considered right now, despite me bringing it up specifically. Alrighty then.
- Paul-Craft 4y agoI'm simply going by what you've written here. If you have considered it, then you have not "shown your work," so to speak.
- adql 4y agoKinda depends if you can run replication from aurora to regular database
- jtc331 4y agoAurora Postgres supports bog standard native Postgres logical replication.
- Ensorceled 4y agoOh, cool, I wasn't aware you could replicate from Aurora RDS to Postgres RDS. That reduces the risk.
- kerkeslager 4y agoYes, still "2 minutes of actual work and a lot of waiting around due to the limitations of the hardware" which is what I said. Perhaps try reading the whole sentence next time?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hobs 4y agoIf you can't stream changes and have to take downtime for a migration then you effectively have vendor lock in if you are serious enough about your database. Physical Replication should be something any database can offer given its something cross database migrations used decades ago with no problem.