5 ms·

Well presumably they need only 1/3 of a developer to do this and they intend to scale up 10x in the next 5 years. $60,000 per year in-house vs $1,200,000 per y

Well presumably they need only 1/3 of a developer to do this and they intend to scale up 10x in the next 5 years. $60,000 per year in-house vs $1,200,000 per year aurora. No brainer really.

andai 2y ago
Also worth mentioning that it's 150x faster.
cortesoft 2y ago
Its $120,000 a year for aurora, not $1,200,000.
- b112 2y ago
  What has changed though, is that we’ve replaced our $10k/month Aurora instances with a $200/month Elastic Block Storage (EBS) volume. Note 'instances' eg plural, versus a singular EBS. There is some ambiguity here, I'm not sure where the 10x came from, but it seems plausible.
  - swasheck 2y ago
    if they were able to replace aurora instances with a glorified kvp store, then they bought the wrong tool in the first place. i saved hundreds of dollars per month by switching from an audi a4 to riding a home-built bike for my 1.5 mile commute to work
    - b112 2y ago
      To be fair, one hardware mysql server for 5k, outperforms a dozen auroea instances. It really bugs me how everyone has drank the coolaide. Cloud is stupid expensive, but of course this is cloud vs cloud.
      - sgarland 2y ago
        RDS also outperforms Aurora. My 12 year old Dell R620s outperform both for certain types of queries (admittedly they have some fast NVMe over insanely fast Mellanox). SANs add latency, who knew? What did surprise me during testing is that Aurora seems to have added latency even if the entire dataset could easily fit into buffers, with zero disk reads required. If you want actually fast cloud DBaaS, the only way is with instances that have local NVMe for caching, like AWS ??gd.db instances.
        swasheck 2y ago
        wholly unimpressed with the aurora line but my mgmt has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker
        sgarland 2y ago
        Mine thinks we’re going to be able to shift a massive, resource-hungry PG BDR mesh onto Aurora. I don’t buy it, purely from a performance capability standpoint. The only reason the shit queries we have run at all is through sheer performance.

Well presumably they need only 1/3 of a developer to do this and they intend to scale up 10x in the next 5 years. $60,000 per year in-house vs $1,200,000 per year aurora. No brainer really.

andai 2y ago

Also worth mentioning that it's 150x faster.

cortesoft 2y ago

Its $120,000 a year for aurora, not $1,200,000.

b112 2y ago
What has changed though, is that we’ve replaced our $10k/month Aurora instances with a $200/month Elastic Block Storage (EBS) volume. Note 'instances' eg plural, versus a singular EBS. There is some ambiguity here, I'm not sure where the 10x came from, but it seems plausible.
- swasheck 2y ago
  if they were able to replace aurora instances with a glorified kvp store, then they bought the wrong tool in the first place. i saved hundreds of dollars per month by switching from an audi a4 to riding a home-built bike for my 1.5 mile commute to work
  - b112 2y ago
    To be fair, one hardware mysql server for 5k, outperforms a dozen auroea instances. It really bugs me how everyone has drank the coolaide. Cloud is stupid expensive, but of course this is cloud vs cloud.
    - sgarland 2y ago
      RDS also outperforms Aurora. My 12 year old Dell R620s outperform both for certain types of queries (admittedly they have some fast NVMe over insanely fast Mellanox). SANs add latency, who knew? What did surprise me during testing is that Aurora seems to have added latency even if the entire dataset could easily fit into buffers, with zero disk reads required. If you want actually fast cloud DBaaS, the only way is with instances that have local NVMe for caching, like AWS ??gd.db instances.
      - swasheck 2y ago
        wholly unimpressed with the aurora line but my mgmt has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker
        sgarland 2y ago
        Mine thinks we’re going to be able to shift a massive, resource-hungry PG BDR mesh onto Aurora. I don’t buy it, purely from a performance capability standpoint. The only reason the shit queries we have run at all is through sheer performance.