Why is it so expensive? Not only is the entry point $200/m, the instances are twice the price of their EC2 equivalents. (At first I thought perhaps the price included multi-AZ, but it doesn't.)
Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
71–80 of 323 posts
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be really aimed at businesses which want to get off of MongoDB desperately.
So they’ll have a huge target market.
I’m not a fan of mongo, but I’ve run a fairly sizable enterprise platform on it for nearly a decade and we haven’t had any major issues that would make replacing it an urgent desire.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#73Now I kinda hope Oracle decides to buy out MongoDB and integrate it into their own cloud. Then Oracle can decide to pull the same bullshit that they did with Google over the Java APIs with the MongoDB APIs but now against their current enemy Amazon (and Microsoft, too).
Then a combined Google + Amazon + Microsoft may finally be able to reverse the API Copyright insanity that is hovering ominously over the tech industry, and Oracle can continue to be a shining city upon a hill of shitty technologies you should never allow your business to adopt.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#74I'm pretty sure this is going to kill Mongo as a company dead. With this in existence there's literally no reason to use Atlas.
If they wanted to twist the knife they should get to work implementing a pass through migration option.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
A recent work Slack chat had a dev asking what a particular table contained. They were going through our data inventory and found a randomly-named table 18TB in size. When I ran "select count()" against it, I got back 5,325,451,020,708 rows (that's a copy-and-paste). 50GB isn't trivial, but it's utterly manageable.
It seems a bit wrong if you have a 18TB table but no idea what it contains...
It was a temp table that we hadn't garbage collected yet. We don't make a habit of leaving that much junk data around, but it bumped our monthly storage bill several percent, not like tripled it.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#76How the heck was this approved by legal? AWS is linking to MongoDB's own documentation.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide...
Go to any operation, it links to docs.mongodb.com !
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#77I'm pretty sure this is going to kill Mongo as a company dead. With this in existence there's literally no reason to use Atlas. If they wanted to twist the knife they should get to work implementing a pass through migration option.
MongoDB still have a strong hand
- control of the client and particularly its exposed featureset
- due to that, also control of the protocol and the ability to, for example, insert legally protected strings in the style of the Apple SMC signature into the handshake.
- ability to gate new features on the presence of an object like a copyrighted text, trademark, or even a crypto signature
- ownership of the name. AWS are pissing in Mongo's pool marketing themselves as compatible, and there are a variety of ways it could be made to backfire, if it were in Mongo's interests to encourage that outcome
- AWS focuses on breadth and very rarely nails any particular service. Their hosted Postgres for example still does not expose core features years later
- Following from that, AWS services on the whole are rarely best-in-class in terms of raw performance. I imagine Mongo could continue to easily compete on benchmark results running on AWS own infrastructure
I think this is a really interesting case, far more interesting than the technical minutia of Just Yet Another AWS service. It does not sit well with me whatsoever that they're basically ripping off a much smaller company's core tech while simultaneously borrowing their trademark (in a legally acceptable manner) as part of the marketing, but I also find it hard not to see a ton of potential upside from this for Mongo
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they’ll have a huge target market.
I’m not a fan of mongo, but I’ve run a fairly sizable enterprise platform on it for nearly a decade and we haven’t had any major issues that would make replacing it an urgent desire.
Once there is AWS version, it seems like a matter of time before it becomes the safe choice. Nobody got fired for using AWS.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#79I was reading a post [0] by Brian Cantrill that predicted this would be the result of licences like the SSPL. I instinctively disagreed with him, but it turns out he was right: "The cloud services providers are currently reproprietarizing all of computing — they are making their own CPUs for crying out loud! — reimplementing the bits of your software that they need in the name of the service that their customers want…
What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.
Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility
#80My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…
It would be nice if Amazon provided an API to access the data via SQL alongside the MongoDB API; I've seen quite a number of organizations migrate from mongo to Postgres once they get out of the rapid development phase. This would make that transition butter smooth.