3 ms·
Its $120,000 a year for aurora, not $1,200,000.
by cortesoft 3y ago
Its $120,000 a year for aurora, not $1,200,000.
- b112 3y agoWhat 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 3y agoif 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 3y agoTo 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 3y agoRDS 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 3y agowholly unimpressed with the aurora line but my mgmt has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker
- sgarland 3y agoMine 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.