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

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#91

Post by otterley »

Thaxll wrote: post #83
nl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

Because renting bare metal servers and put your cloud on it is cheaper and better in a lot of cases.

Maybe -- the additional labor overhead needed to maintain OpenStack might negate the cost savings of running your own equipment.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#92

Post by fortpoint »

LeonD wrote: post #76

Is 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.

Amazon's environments meet PCI standards and there are folks with PCI Level 1 companies running their infrastructure in AWS and storing credit card data there.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#93

Post by gaadd33 »

AaronFriel wrote: post #90

Ouch. This pricing is pretty rough for SaaS sold on the premise of cloud scalability. At $200/month for the entry level, their lowest price is many times what the cheapest geo-replicated "SQL engine as a service" from Google or Microsoft is. I'm not sure how the performance differs, but I am guessing theirs are no slouches. Microsoft offers "SQL Database" geo-replicated for as low as $15/mo., and it scales up from th…

I don't think this is targeted towards those who only need to store a small amount of data and have very low performance needs. If you are are already spending $500/mo on an RDS instance, then it sounds like this would be a great solution. If you are spending $10/mo on a micro instance for your database server, I don't think this is targeted towards you.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#94

Post by donmaq »

I'm interested in transaction support for e-commerce. Magento users can experience significant performance issues on MySQL, and the upper tier are always interested in more RDBMS performance, eg via NewSQL solutions.

So what can Aurora do for that workload? Do the support multi-table transactions and referential integrity across all 3 Availability Zones? Similarly, they mentioned Durability targets; what's their targets for Consistency (ie ACID).

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#95

Post by nl »

Thaxll wrote: post #83
nl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

Because renting bare metal servers and put your cloud on it is cheaper and better in a lot of cases.

When you are actually using it as a private cloud for multiple internal clients I can kind of see the point (as I mentioned in my previous comment).

If not, then what utility is OpenStack providing?

Bare metal works well. I see many people using either Docker on bare metal or maybe a VM layer as an additional security layer, but using Docker as the deployment target.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#97

Post by loco77 »

kapilvt wrote: post #86
arthursilva wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to explain?

CloudSQL on gce is mysql on bigtable afaicr, its been around for a few years. EDIT: actually it looks like cloudsql might actually be a mysql.. also on gce they max out 16gb of ram and 100gb of storage

Aurora max looks like it's 64TB, that's 640 times larger, which I guess is what you're hinting at.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#99

Post by loco77 »

wmf wrote: post #73
applecore wrote: post #63

Earlier 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?

The point is you can run MySQL or any of its variants on your own hardware or anyone else's. Nobody forces you to use Amazon's implementation.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#100

Post by vishnugupta »

Cieplak wrote: post #39
jasondc wrote: post #28

I think the problem AWS is seeing is how they are being commoditized (e.g. you can just run your database on the cheapest hosting provider), so profits will move towards 0. They will need to add more services like this (Aurora, DynamoDB, etc.) to ensure AWS isn't a commodity (and you can't just easily switch to DigitalOcean).

I think that the AWS vendor lock-in won't come from single features such as databases from specific vendors, but rather the ecosystem of Route53, elastic load balancers, S3, EBS, AMIs, Glacier, RDS, CloudFormation templates, SQS, security groups, libraries like boto, auto scaling groups, and everything else besides instance provisioning. Of course you can implement most of these yourself, e.g., HAProxy for ELBs, rabb…

> but all that requires application code changes and significantly more configuration management.

And not to talk about making them highly available, scalable, having to continuously monitor and so on takes time, effort and involves significant opportunity costs.

Imagine business folks telling engineers about an upcoming promotion campaign that bring in 3X more load. Outside of AWS (or cloud provided service) one has to sit and plan for scaling up all the individual components (rabbitmq, haproxy etc.,) which really becomes pain after a few iterations.

Post reply on HN