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

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#131

Post by skj »

loco77 wrote: post #130
skj wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fair. It's certainly not my intention to astroturf.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#132

Post by VintageCool »

EGreg wrote: post #52
chuhnk wrote: post #50

Earlier 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…

The only reason that Amazon isn't immensely profitable right now is that their investors permit them to plow almost all of that profit into expanding their business.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#133

Post by zzzeek »

x0x0 wrote: post #106
zzzeek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignore OpenStack at your peril.

I've still to meet someone using it. Everyone uses aws; you hear people complaining about google compute's problems; I even hear people using eucalyptus. I've never met anyone using openstack (and I've been to aws conferences).

ever meet anyone who uses Rackspace Cloud? http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#134

Post by zzzeek »

vidarh wrote: post #112
nl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The utility it is providing is deployment/management of the underlying resources. Docker does not do that. Some of the stuff people are building on top of/around Docker will provide it, but it's not there. But I agree with you that OpenStack is not good enough to be worth it for that with perhaps the exception of very large multi-tenant deployments (in which case, my first goal would be to start rewriting large chunk…

> And parts of it are just so horribly over-engineered it is scary, because it makes me wonder what it is they're missing to think it was necessary to make things that convoluted, and what they're missing because they've made it so convoluted.

So the source code for Amazon Web Services is clearly architected, free of cruft and under-/over-engineering? I assume you've worked with AWS's source code in order to be able to make such a comparison. In my experience, the design and architecture of closed-source internal applications delivered to customers only as a front-end is usually a nightmare.

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#135

Post by Xorlev »

frozenport wrote: post #46
Xorlev wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably aren't the target audience if your database fits in RAM.

You can see notable changes in performance if your database gets fragmented, and tweaking the .my.cnf script seems like a massive distraction from my actual work. Having somebody handle these and improve performance for long queries would be wonderful.

You can just use RDS m1.smalls then. We have databases that are 20-40GB running off smalls with relatively high throughput (more than I expected when builiding it for sure).

$200/mo minimum pricetag is extremely high for 300mb of data, or even 10GB of data.

We're looking at migrating a product of ours to Aurora and it has an operational dataset on the order of terabytes.

(inb4 nosql: Why not NoSQL? It needs transactions that don't suck (I'm looking at you Cassandra). We use C* for other large datasets, I do wish we could just use that.)

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#136

Post by EGreg »

VintageCool wrote: post #132
EGreg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The only reason that Amazon isn't immensely profitable right now is that their investors permit them to plow almost all of that profit into expanding their business.

In other words letting them create a monopoly and extract rents like standard oil?

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#137

Post by bixu_ »

jpgvm wrote: post #105
zzzeek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignore OpenStack at your peril.

I worked on and around Openstack for 18+ months. I think ignoring it is pretty safe to ignore at this point. There might come along something that is actually good, but Openstack isn't it. The architecture is just bad, it will never be as reliable as something like AWS. (not because of scale, purely because of lack of error handling capabilities) Reality is these sorts of orchestration systems need to be written by s…

So SmartDataCenter?

Re: Aurora - New MySQL-Compatible Database Engine

#138

Post by kiennd »

jpgvm wrote: post #105
zzzeek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignore OpenStack at your peril.

I worked on and around Openstack for 18+ months. I think ignoring it is pretty safe to ignore at this point. There might come along something that is actually good, but Openstack isn't it. The architecture is just bad, it will never be as reliable as something like AWS. (not because of scale, purely because of lack of error handling capabilities) Reality is these sorts of orchestration systems need to be written by s…

Why you said that when a lot of large enterprise are very actively investing in ? Can you tell more details ?
Post reply on HN