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

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#121

Post by ohyesyodo »

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…

It's not SQL Server, it's SQL Database. There are many large differences between the two.

A 50GB database with 10GB of RAM usage and 2 cores costs 700USD/Mo with SQL Database. This is replicated twice within DC. Double that price if you want georedundancy. Their entry level costs less but is also unusable for most real applications

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#122

Post by loco77 »

skj wrote: post #120
loco77 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your profile says you work at Google...

I certainly do. On cloud no less. The reality is that Amazon got to market several years before Google, so GCP had some catching up to do. That trend is changing, and this is one indication.

If you're going to post your subjective opinion on something involving your employer vs a competitor it's best to include a disclaimer in future.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#123

Post by sauronlord »

loco77 wrote: post #119
vidarh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is vendor lockin because it means you avoid thinking about how to deal with scaling beyond the single box. So when the moment comes and you want to move away from AWS and you have scaled well beyond the capacity of a single box, what then? Suddenly you have to figure out sharding, replication and HA setups from scratch. While that may be the right choice for you if you're an early stage startup and it lets you def…

There's nothing stopping you from using a scale-out architecture with Aurora, and nothing stopping you from running MySQL on your own hardware with loads of SSDs to get the throughput you are after.

Quote from article:

"Baseline storage performance is rapid, reliable and predictable—it scales linearly as you store more data, and allows you to burst to higher rates on occasion."

You mean to say that I can scale my single MySQL instance linearly with data storage by just throwing bigger SSDs at it? That has not been my experience, please share how you have been able to accomplish this?

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#124

Post by loco77 »

sauronlord wrote: post #123
loco77 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing stopping you from using a scale-out architecture with Aurora, and nothing stopping you from running MySQL on your own hardware with loads of SSDs to get the throughput you are after.

Quote from article: "Baseline storage performance is rapid, reliable and predictable—it scales linearly as you store more data, and allows you to burst to higher rates on occasion." You mean to say that I can scale my single MySQL instance linearly with data storage by just throwing bigger SSDs at it? That has not been my experience, please share how you have been able to accomplish this?

Fair point, I don't know what voodoo they use, but you can purchase monstrously big servers (you'll need more than just one fit availability in any event) and storage arrays that would exceed the performance requirements of the vast majority of plausible use cases. The cost of such equipment is likely more expensive than AWS though.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#125

Post by Wouter33 »

dk8996 wrote: post #68
meritt wrote: post #44

Earlier 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?

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.

As i understood this your database storage is replicated to multiple places, but it still runs on one instance. It does not have failover to those replicated places. You'll have to launch multiple instances for that just like RDS. So cheaper, no.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#126

Post by skj »

loco77 wrote: post #122
skj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly do. On cloud no less. The reality is that Amazon got to market several years before Google, so GCP had some catching up to do. That trend is changing, and this is one indication.

If you're going to post your subjective opinion on something involving your employer vs a competitor it's best to include a disclaimer in future.

What was the subjective opinion? "neat"? The rest was factual.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#127

Post by loco77 »

skj wrote: post #126
loco77 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to post your subjective opinion on something involving your employer vs a competitor it's best to include a disclaimer in future.

What was the subjective opinion? "neat"? The rest was factual.

The subjective opinion was about "following" when Amazon has had relational database services for years, and the latest engine they say was under development for 3 years, not exactly something in response to goog.

Irrespective of that you shouldn't be posting as joe public when in fact you are a Google employee playing cheerleader for Google products on threads about your competitors products. Keep it classy.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#128

Post by skj »

loco77 wrote: post #127
skj wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the subjective opinion? "neat"? The rest was factual.

The subjective opinion was about "following" when Amazon has had relational database services for years, and the latest engine they say was under development for 3 years, not exactly something in response to goog. Irrespective of that you shouldn't be posting as joe public when in fact you are a Google employee playing cheerleader for Google products on threads about your competitors products. Keep it classy.

We're not talking about a relational database, we're talking about a mysql-wire-compatible database. Google BigQuery has been around for a while too.

Adding "disclaimer: googler" to every post I make on HN seems pretty obnoxious to both me and anyone reading. I just didn't feel that "neat" + a fact qualified. Clearly opinions on that differ, and I'll probably just post less in the future.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#129

Post by tracker1 »

vidarh wrote: post #113
tracker1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a case of creating vendor lock-in at all? The service itself is API compatible with MySQL... you can migrate to... MySQL, MariaDB, or a host of other services that are exposed in a MySQL compatible interface.

It is vendor lockin because it means you avoid thinking about how to deal with scaling beyond the single box. So when the moment comes and you want to move away from AWS and you have scaled well beyond the capacity of a single box, what then? Suddenly you have to figure out sharding, replication and HA setups from scratch. While that may be the right choice for you if you're an early stage startup and it lets you def…

You can also do sharding on mysql, or use foundation, or any number of other platforms that are mysql compatible as I said... lock-in means that you don't have the ability to migrate relatively easily. In this case, your application layer likely wouldn't need to change at all.

They've even mentioned it's pretty much a click-through to migrate from mysql... to me that seems like the opposite of lock-in.

As to only being able to use their infrastructure to scale this way, that's a value-add.. that's part of why you pay for SaaS instead of developing your own infrastructure. This is why you're renting instead of buying.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#130

Post by loco77 »

skj wrote: post #128
loco77 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subjective opinion was about "following" when Amazon has had relational database services for years, and the latest engine they say was under development for 3 years, not exactly something in response to goog. Irrespective of that you shouldn't be posting as joe public when in fact you are a Google employee playing cheerleader for Google products on threads about your competitors products. Keep it classy.

We're not talking about a relational database, we're talking about a mysql-wire-compatible database. Google BigQuery has been around for a while too. Adding "disclaimer: googler" to every post I make on HN seems pretty obnoxious to both me and anyone reading. I just didn't feel that "neat" + a fact qualified. Clearly opinions on that differ, and I'll probably just post less in the future.

It's only necessary in cases where there is an obvious conflict of interest.
Post reply on HN