3 ms·

m6a.48xlarge: 192 vCPU & 768 GiB If that's not a large node for you, well you're living in a different world from me. Yes to using EBS.

winrid 3y ago
Thanks for the info. The issue is using EBS. If you used an instance with NVME drives it would probably have been faster than BQ (and you aren't billed per-query...). I would suggest an R or I4 class instance for this, m6 is not good for the money here. You would just have to setup replication for backups, but this could just be rsync to EBS or some other replication solution depending on your database.
sgarland 3y ago
Unless you’re CPU-bound (unlikely), the r-family is usually a better fit for RDBMS, IME. 8x RAM:vCPU ratio, compared to 4x for m-family. Then there’s the x-family, which can go up to bonkers levels, like 4 TiB of RAM (and local NVMe). As a sibling comment mentioned, though, if you can fit the data into local storage, that’s the way to do it. EBS latency, even with io2.blockexpress, simply cannot compete. That said, if I did the math correctly based on the 71 GB/31 days footnote, you’re looking at about 2.15 PB to load the entire thing, so, uh, good luck.
- ayewo 3y ago
  In your experience, is the r-family better than the c-family for running an RDBMS?
  - aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
    things are changing recently in aws, but few years ago R-family instances had one of the fastest uplink to EBS. for example only the larges M4 instance (m4.16xlarge) has 10gbps uplink, versus R5b where it starts from 10gbps (for the lowest tier) and ends on 60gbps @ 260k IOPS. you can very easily choke EBS with DB. EDIT: only newer C instances have comparable uplink to EBS, C5 or C4 (and some C6) starts from ~4.7gbps. just compare the EBS bandwidth column in https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
    - sgarland 3y ago
      The other fun thing about AWS instances is that the network uplink speed isn’t always what’s advertised. There is of course the “Up to X Gbps” levels (30 minutes of rated speed guaranteed every 24 hours), but there are also other limits, like cross-region speed being capped at 50% of rated capacity. This rarely matters until it does, like if you’re setting up an active-active DB across regions. Then it’s a fun surprise.
  - sgarland 3y ago
    Yes. Most RDBMS are memory-bound (indexes, connection overhead, buffer pool…), so the more, the better. At my last job, I switched a large-ish (100K QPS at peak) m5 MySQL instance to a smaller (in AWS numbering) r6i that was cheaper, despite having the same amount of RAM and being generation newer. That, combined with careful tuning and testing, resulted in queries speeding up 20-40%, AND we then had plenty of room for vertical scaling again if necessary.

winrid 3y ago

Thanks for the info. The issue is using EBS. If you used an instance with NVME drives it would probably have been faster than BQ (and you aren't billed per-query...). I would suggest an R or I4 class instance for this, m6 is not good for the money here. You would just have to setup replication for backups, but this could just be rsync to EBS or some other replication solution depending on your database.

sgarland 3y ago

Unless you’re CPU-bound (unlikely), the r-family is usually a better fit for RDBMS, IME. 8x RAM:vCPU ratio, compared to 4x for m-family. Then there’s the x-family, which can go up to bonkers levels, like 4 TiB of RAM (and local NVMe). As a sibling comment mentioned, though, if you can fit the data into local storage, that’s the way to do it. EBS latency, even with io2.blockexpress, simply cannot compete. That said, if I did the math correctly based on the 71 GB/31 days footnote, you’re looking at about 2.15 PB to load the entire thing, so, uh, good luck.

ayewo 3y ago
In your experience, is the r-family better than the c-family for running an RDBMS?
- aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
  things are changing recently in aws, but few years ago R-family instances had one of the fastest uplink to EBS. for example only the larges M4 instance (m4.16xlarge) has 10gbps uplink, versus R5b where it starts from 10gbps (for the lowest tier) and ends on 60gbps @ 260k IOPS. you can very easily choke EBS with DB. EDIT: only newer C instances have comparable uplink to EBS, C5 or C4 (and some C6) starts from ~4.7gbps. just compare the EBS bandwidth column in https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
  - sgarland 3y ago
    The other fun thing about AWS instances is that the network uplink speed isn’t always what’s advertised. There is of course the “Up to X Gbps” levels (30 minutes of rated speed guaranteed every 24 hours), but there are also other limits, like cross-region speed being capped at 50% of rated capacity. This rarely matters until it does, like if you’re setting up an active-active DB across regions. Then it’s a fun surprise.
- sgarland 3y ago
  Yes. Most RDBMS are memory-bound (indexes, connection overhead, buffer pool…), so the more, the better. At my last job, I switched a large-ish (100K QPS at peak) m5 MySQL instance to a smaller (in AWS numbering) r6i that was cheaper, despite having the same amount of RAM and being generation newer. That, combined with careful tuning and testing, resulted in queries speeding up 20-40%, AND we then had plenty of room for vertical scaling again if necessary.