4 ms·
This is very simple: EBS has a latency of around 2 ms. SSD has a latency of around of around 0.25 ms. A relational database will have around 10x the performa
by ReflectedImage 3y ago
This is very simple:
EBS has a latency of around 2 ms.
SSD has a latency of around of around 0.25 ms.
A relational database will have around 10x the performance on an SSD compared to EBS because relational databases need to ensure data has been fully written to disk.
- zbentley 3y agoSometimes. The more expensive varieties of EBS provide comparable latency numbers to local SSDs (by using fancy on-hypervisor volatile storage or something? No idea), for an added cost. A separate set of behavior exists for RDS Aurora, which isn't using EBS underneath, so it might be worth looking into the Aurora latency characteristics (vs. cost, of course; Aurora ain't cheap) if you're concerned about the performance impact of EBS-vs-local-disk.
- ReflectedImage 3y agoUltimately, hosting a relational database on AWS will cost 10x as much regardless of which non-working flavour of it you choose. Million dollar database bills do not happen outside of the cloud world.
- zbentley 3y ago> Million dollar database bills do not happen outside of the cloud world. Laughs in Oracle per-CPU licensing terms
- magicalhippo 3y agoReminds me of when a customer complained a DB-heavy processing step took about 10x as long as expected, ie 10 minutes instead of 1. We used on-prem DB server and fat clients. After a long debugging session I hadn't found anything. Gradping at straws I asked what kind of network they ran. Turned out the clients all ran on laptops connected through Wi-Fi... so yeah 10x latency turned into 10x longer job.