Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

Post by privateSFacct » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 7:00 AM UTC

illumin8 wrote: post #160

social_quotient wrote: post #147

I really wish this were priced more along the lines of https://www.compose.com/pricing - a $200/m floor is a tough dB cost to absorb on smaller yet important projects. Suppose an app has a few mb of data and maybe one day hits 100mb of awesomeness I really have to pay $200/m here? I get it, I love Aws, just wish this was priced differently.

If you need a cheap/free document store for a small app, just use DynamoDB. It's free (forever, not just the first year) up to 25GB of storage and enough read/write capacity units to handle up to 200M requests per month: https://aws.amazon.com/free/?awsf.Free%20Tier%20Types=catego...

Post by privateSFacct » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #171

alittletooraph wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right they're not profitable — and neither is MongoDB — but the point is that AWS launched an Elasticsearch service 3 years prior to Elastic having a very successful IPO supported by stellar metrics (also found in the SEC filing you linked). So the statements made at the beginning of this thread are probably a bit premature.

Only in tech do people think that a money losing company is “successful” because they were able to convince investors to buy stock instead of defining success as having a business model where income is greater than expenses. In reality long term profitability is the only metric that matters for a corporation

Post by hendry » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

Post by jchw » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 7:22 AM UTC

kemitchell wrote: post #189

jchw wrote: post #4

Seems like this is likely to be the real result of licenses like the SSPL. Not even a terrible outcome if the different implementations remain relatively compatible.

I’d be surprised to learn that AWS started and launched this project since the SSPL announcement. I suspect they began when latest Mongo was still AGPL, with no sign of impeding change.

Post by int_19h » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 7:34 AM UTC

mrep wrote: post #167

talawahtech wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like it is built on top of the Aurora storage subsystem that is used by both Aurora MySQl and Aurora Postgres[1]. I kinda expected them to build it on top of DynamoDb's backend and provide the same kind of "Serverless" on demand experience, but I guess the architecture didn't fit, or maybe this was just faster. 1. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide...

Definitely because it was faster. Amazon's strategy is to launch new features ASAP and then rely on everyone having to be on-call to fix shit when it inevitably breaks in prod because they rushed to launch. I will admit that while their "operational excellence" is shit, the security engineers do have quite a bit of power to block launches so their security isn't as bad as the reliability. However, the fact that write…