3 ms·

At that pricing, I'm curious if it makes sense to put blobs in the database rather than S3. Any thoughts?

• cornellwright 11y ago
  That's a nice pricing, particularly paying what you actually use but it's still more than 3x the cost of just storing it in S3.
• jewel 11y ago
  At $100/TB/mo? I don't think so. S3 is $30/TB/mo. Unless you have some compelling reason to have the blobs in the database, like indexing them, you'd be better off keeping them somewhere else. I guess if you won't have many blobs, it may be worthwhile to save yourself engineering time of supporting both S3 and Aurora. In an ideal world, there'd just be one permanent data store with a built-in caching layer, for databases, blobs, and log files.
  • toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > I guess if you won't have many blobs, it may be worthwhile to save yourself engineering time of supporting both S3 and Aurora. In an ideal world, there'd just be one permanent data store with a built-in caching layer, for databases, blobs, and log files. We're getting close to that. Write once your data to S3 for persistent storage, then load into Elastic Search. Mostly there.
• meritt 11y ago
  I'd avoid it. It's expensive and MySQL is going to store all those blobs off-page anyway. S3 gives you nice perks like versions and you can just store the s3_name+version as metadata in your DB instead. Also if you want to do any heavy processing of your blobs outside of the DB, S3 tends to be a lot better for parallel access (e.g. hadoop jobs) Obviously don't know your exact use case, but that's what we do.