[deleted]
Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
71–80 of 138 posts
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
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/
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#73(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.
The fact that you can't run it outside of AWS?
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#74(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…
Look more closely. MS may be opening the client side, but that is a honey trap to get people to use their server side stuff. And that is as proprietary as always.
It is the same old play book as they used for Exchange and IIS.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why? Serious question.
OpenStack's model seems to be "clone what Amazon does, 18 months later then hand over to vendors who don't have the scale to match Amazon's prices"
It's kind of nice in theory for internal clouds.
But I'm increasingly seeing tooling targeting Docker instead of OpenStack at the service level for doing the same kinds of things OpenStack is supposed to offer (ie, the service utilities Docker to offer automatic deployment/availability/loadbalancing instead of doing it using the OpenStack APIs).
At the cloud vendor layer, the differences between vendors can be abstracted using libraries, which removes an alleged attraction of OpenStack.
Given that, I see a few vendors challenging Amazon by building unique selling points (Google has some innovative things as does Microsoft, and Digital Ocean pushes the price/performance thing).
I see Docker taking away a lot of the "cross cloud deployment" attraction that OpenStack had, and doing it better.
So what does OpenStack offer end users? (I understand it's attractions to vendors, and maybe the internal cloud use case).
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#76Is a relational workload that requires four-nines-plus availability like Amazon is touting really something an organization would be willing to run in the cloud? Especially since that category includes a lot of personally identifiable data that legally can't be trusted to a third party. Wonder what kind of use cases they're aiming for.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to agree with this. Amazon sees the competitive landscape and their move is to attempt to create some form of vendor lock-in by providing the services that their customers have asked for or are probably hosting themselves. This is by no means a bad move and will result in holding on to a lot more customers as well as creating new revenue streams from those services. For someone like myself however, it complete…
Of course Amazon wants vendor lock-in. Their whole business model is about being a marketplace. Do you want them to open-source their shopping cart software? And in Amazon Web Services, the biggest thing Amazon has to fear is the OpenStack initiative producing a platform that lots of little hosts can host. At the same time, Amazon is stock market time bomb that will either start extracting monopoly rents and draw reg…
> And in Amazon Web Services, the biggest thing Amazon has to fear is the OpenStack initiative producing a platform that lots of little hosts can host.
I highly doubt OpenStack alone can make it possible for smaller players to replicate AWS's economics of scale, or even come particularly close. From what I understand Amazon doesn't just plop their software on commodity hardware, they use highly specialized gear optimized for running specific services. And that's not to mention buying power, the ability to run on razor-thin margins and other business factors that impact pricing.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 100% wire-compatible with MySQL 5.6 (using the InnoDB storage engine), so I'm not sure what you consider proprietary.
The fact that you can't run it outside of AWS?
Who cares? It's a service product, and AWS has many customers already who just want a faster RDBMS.
Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine
#79Is a relational workload that requires four-nines-plus availability like Amazon is touting really something an organization would be willing to run in the cloud? Especially since that category includes a lot of personally identifiable data that legally can't be trusted to a third party. Wonder what kind of use cases they're aiming for.
people should be roughly as comfortable with this as with operating mysql on EC2 or using RDS, and I think that's quite common.