4 ms·

Just slightly more expensive than the same instance with MySQL on RDS ($0.24)

by cjg_ 12y ago

meritt 12y ago
Yes but "Storage is automatically replicated across three AWS Availability Zones (AZs) for durability and high availability, with two copies of the data in each Availability Zone." Is that included in the server cost? Or will you actually be paying ~3x the server + storage costs?
- cjg_ 12y ago
  Good question. "Storage consumed by your database, up to 64 TB, is billed at $0.10 a GB per month and IOs consumed by your database are billed at $0.20 per million requests" Sounds like the replication is included in this, but Amazon really should clarify that.
  - caw 12y ago
    Based on how Amazon's pricing tables are, it should be included. If you go to the normal RDS pricing, there's "Single AZ" and "Multi AZ" pricing. The Multi is 2x Single because it transparently runs the 2nd instance. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/
- dk8996 12y ago
  The pricing needs to be more clear. For example we run MYSQL RDS in production with two AZ enabled, we pay x2 the prices.... so if its only costs a bit more than MYSQL RDS and you get 3 AZ for the same price -- this is good. Moreover, there are costs that come with storage (database size), this thing seems to be smart about being more efficient with allocating space.
  - Wouter33 12y ago
    As i understood this your database storage is replicated to multiple places, but it still runs on one instance. It does not have failover to those replicated places. You'll have to launch multiple instances for that just like RDS. So cheaper, no.
zippergz 12y ago
Right, but you can also get much smaller MySQL instances. It's not necessarily an "ouch" given the capacity, but it is in combination with the fact that there are no smaller instance types.
- cjg_ 12y ago
  If you need a smaller instance you are probably fine with regular MySQL instance though.
AgentConundrum 12y ago
20% is "just slightly" more expensive?
- cjg_ 12y ago
  For the claimed 5x performance and 6 way replication, it seems pretty cheap.

Just slightly more expensive than the same instance with MySQL on RDS ($0.24)

by cjg_ 12y ago

Just slightly more expensive than the same instance with MySQL on RDS ($0.24)

Yes but "Storage is automatically replicated across three AWS Availability Zones (AZs) for durability and high availability, with two copies of the data in each Availability Zone." Is that included in the server cost? Or will you actually be paying ~3x the server + storage costs?

cjg_ 12y ago
Good question. "Storage consumed by your database, up to 64 TB, is billed at $0.10 a GB per month and IOs consumed by your database are billed at $0.20 per million requests" Sounds like the replication is included in this, but Amazon really should clarify that.
- caw 12y ago
  Based on how Amazon's pricing tables are, it should be included. If you go to the normal RDS pricing, there's "Single AZ" and "Multi AZ" pricing. The Multi is 2x Single because it transparently runs the 2nd instance. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/
dk8996 12y ago
The pricing needs to be more clear. For example we run MYSQL RDS in production with two AZ enabled, we pay x2 the prices.... so if its only costs a bit more than MYSQL RDS and you get 3 AZ for the same price -- this is good. Moreover, there are costs that come with storage (database size), this thing seems to be smart about being more efficient with allocating space.
- Wouter33 12y ago
  As i understood this your database storage is replicated to multiple places, but it still runs on one instance. It does not have failover to those replicated places. You'll have to launch multiple instances for that just like RDS. So cheaper, no.

zippergz 12y ago

Right, but you can also get much smaller MySQL instances. It's not necessarily an "ouch" given the capacity, but it is in combination with the fact that there are no smaller instance types.

cjg_ 12y ago
If you need a smaller instance you are probably fine with regular MySQL instance though.

AgentConundrum 12y ago

20% is "just slightly" more expensive?

cjg_ 12y ago
For the claimed 5x performance and 6 way replication, it seems pretty cheap.