AWS MySQL Aurora Vs RDS - What one should I chose?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2022
- ℹ️ johnnychivers.co.uk
☕ www.buymeacoffee.com/johnnych...
00:12 - What We Will Cover
00:50 - Architecture And Infra RDS
01:40 - Architecture And Infra Aurora
02:07 - Architecture Advantages
03:22 - Price Comparison
04:12 - Aurora MySQL Versions
04:47 - Automatic Failover
05:57 - Change In Patterns
In this video we take a look at the differences between Amazon Aurora MySQL-Compatible DB and MySQL RDS. What one should you chose for your projects? What are the differences? How much to they cost?
😎 About me
I have spent the last decade being immersed in the world of big data working as a consultant for some the globe's biggest companies.My journey into the world of data was not the most conventional. I started my career working as performance analyst in professional sport at the top level's of both rugby and football. I then transitioned into a career in data and computing. This journey culminated in the study of a Masters degree in Software development. Alongside many a professional certification in AWS and MS SQL Server. - Věda a technologie
Nicely done, easy to understand, well laid out, very articulate. Thank you!
You're a boss.
Perfect delivery of two services that sit side-by-side.
I've recently built my architecture on AWS RDS and am now switching to Aurora.
Liked and Subscribed.
Thanks.
Thanks for watching and subbing!
Just came across your vid, great explanation man, thanks a lot!
Good job with this video. Please give more screen time to the slides. We already see your handsome face.😜 It was shit hard to grab concepts from the slide since you switch abit too fast
Bless you. This is the easiest to follow comparison video for rds mysql vs. aurora that i've seen!
Glad it was helpful!
bro!! Thanks for you time, it's cool you video.
Thanks @Johnny Chivers. This video unlocked a lot of confusions I had with RDS and Aurora. But doesn't Aurora global databases provide fault tolerance against Region outage?
Excellent video. What is the connectivity in Aurora like with Redshift vs RDS?
Cost savings definitely make it attractive 🙂
Definitely! It's too hard to ignore when solution designing.
Interesting your price estimator in this video says Aurora will be cheaper. Almost every other video I've seen states that the cost is higher than using non Aurora version.
An Aurora database which won't be used and is 99% idle is probably cheaper. Or when your database is so small that it fits into your RAM.
Main difference why Aurora is usually more expensive is that you have to pay for IOPS too, while you don't have in RDS. So anytime the DB can't find the data in the RAM and has to read from the storage you have to pay extra. For some of our databases IOPS is 60% of the total price.
That a common problem beginners have in AWS. Most of the services have hidden costs. Same for Cloudwatch. Many people really underestimate the need for reliable logging and metrics and are then surprised about the huge Cloudwatch cost.
Very good video, thank you! God bless - Matthew 11:28
Now I'm more confused. I thought they did completely different things. I thought Aurora was compatible with RDS. But you're saying they're alternatives to one another? I don't understand the function of each service.
When talking about prices you are comparing a multi-az MySQL with a single-az Aurora, is that fair? Aurora replicates the storage layer across all AZ, but not the server instance; in the other side, MySQL multi-az means you have a replica of the server running in other AZ. In that scenario MySQL has HA, but Aurora doesn't. To achieve HA with Aurora you need to configure a replica in other AZ, so the price will be the double (340.50 USD). In case of failover the replica is promoted as primary, but it also implies a change in the endpoint; to avoid it you also need to configure a RDS Proxy that costs another 43.20 USD for that configuration (primary and replica with 2 vcpus each). So, in total, to achieve HA in Aurora, you have to pay 383.70 USD/month (70.14 USD more expensive than MySQL configuration).
If HA is not important to you, then you could go with single-az MySQL as the price will be the half (156.78 USD, 13.47 USD cheaper than Aurora).
Some good points, but I do think it’s a fair comparison as it stands. The data in Aurora is highly available. It’s is backed up 6 times across 3 AZs. To achieve parody with RDS you would need a further 4 back ups (which you stream data to) of the EBS volumes and move two to a different AZ. Then you would have to create a restore process If you lost a node. In terms of the actual compute, you will not have an instant fail over if the Aurora node goes down as you would in a multi AZ RDS deployment. However, AWS usually have a new node provisioned and operational in under 60s, so whilst not instant provided you have some retry logic in your code you are going to be ok in terms of failure. And don’t forget RDS has to replay from a check point in logs, so it can take 30 seconds plus anyway for a failover. Plus you get 150% more through put on the single Aurora node when compared to a multi AZ RDS deployment. Now, I think the data redundancy and the possible 30 seconds difference in instant failover can be used to cancel each other out, which makes the comparison reasonably fair.
@@JohnnyChivers That downtime, in case of failover with Aurora, can be only achieved by having a read replica that will be promoted as the new master. In other case, deploying a new master could take up to 15 minutes while provisioning, configuring, initializing, and all that stuff AWS RDS does.
INOA Aurora Global Databases came out in 2018