Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#61

Post by dangrossman »

zippergz wrote: post #41
ssharp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd think for most toy projects, running more than an EC2 instance or two is overkill. At least in my experiences, running the full stack on a single server works well enough for most hobby projects. I certainly don't want to spend $7 a day playing around with RDS for fun!

Definitely. But one of the nice things about a lot of the AWS stuff is that you can build on the same infrastructure you'd use if you wanted to scale up. So if you have a toy project that ends up being more successful than you expect, it's pretty easy to just add resources. For example, DynamoDB is ultra cheap for the lowest usage levels, but simply by reserving more capacity you can scale up with absolutely no chang…

> other than moving the data

Moving data from one instance of MySQL to another is usually straightforward as a one-liner, piping a SQL dump from the old database into the new one over the network...

    mysqldump -hOldHost | mysql -hNewHost
...and waiting.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#62

Post by freshflowers »

bcantrill wrote: post #49

(Disclaimer: I work for an AWS competitor.) To me, there is a very interesting contrast to be had between this announcement and Microsoft's announcement: it feels like Microsoft is discovering the business value of being open at the same time that Amazon is living in the time warp of proprietary everything. Has Microsoft internalized that open source is (or can be) a differentiator in the cloud? Amazon is clearly sti…

Apples and oranges. Cloud services are something very different from a development stack.

Amazon puts all its SDK stuff open source on Github, and I don't see Microsoft open sourcing its tech behind Azure.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#63

Post by applecore »

bcantrill wrote: post #49

(Disclaimer: I work for an AWS competitor.) To me, there is a very interesting contrast to be had between this announcement and Microsoft's announcement: it feels like Microsoft is discovering the business value of being open at the same time that Amazon is living in the time warp of proprietary everything. Has Microsoft internalized that open source is (or can be) a differentiator in the cloud? Amazon is clearly sti…

It's 100% wire-compatible with MySQL 5.6 (using the InnoDB storage engine), so I'm not sure what you consider proprietary.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#64

Post by BenoitP »

ahachete wrote: post #30
slik33 wrote: post #15

Why mysql? Why not postgres engine?

No one is saying that Aurora is built on MySQL, I'd personally like to know :) It's the protocol (drivers) compatibility what has been claimed so far. I'd agree with you from a technical perspective it would have been better to offer Postgres compatibility, rather than MySQL. But I believe the intent is to target both a bigger market (as of today) and challenge Oracle.

> tables that I create in Amazon Aurora must use the InnoDB engine

It hasn't been claimed, but the article is filled with MySQL comparisons and references. I would not be surprised if it was a MySQL fork.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#67

Post by dubcanada »

frozenport wrote: post #27

Does this introduce more latency compared to running a LAMPs stack on EC2 or does it target larger databases? My database is about 300 megabytes.

I have to agree with what others said. This is most likely targeted at the several GB + crowd.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#68

Post by dk8996 »

meritt wrote: post #44
cjg_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#69

Post by elwell »

state_machine wrote: post #3

“Aurora" is already the name of a cloud infrastructure management product, an open-souce apache project no less: http://aurora.incubator.apache.org/ Using an existing name for a product in a similar space is just confusing and hurts everyone.

Also, the first thing I thought of when I saw the word Aurora was the 2012 shooting in Colorado. That's sad that the word is associated with that, but also a facet of the naming consideration.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#70

Post by zzzeek »

mallipeddi wrote: post #60
bcantrill wrote: post #49

(Disclaimer: I work for an AWS competitor.) To me, there is a very interesting contrast to be had between this announcement and Microsoft's announcement: it feels like Microsoft is discovering the business value of being open at the same time that Amazon is living in the time warp of proprietary everything. Has Microsoft internalized that open source is (or can be) a differentiator in the cloud? Amazon is clearly sti…

Amazon is way ahead of everyone else in the cloud space. Their closest rivals (Microsoft & Google) are pretty much copying AWS. Most of Azure's services are equally proprietary and I doubt that will ever change. This just leaves the other smaller players (DigitalOcean, Joyent, Rackspace, etc) who are mostly offering something akin to EC2 and then partnering with other vendors to offer the missing pieces on top (frank…

ignore OpenStack at your peril.
Post reply on HN