Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjg_ | Hacker News Reader

Just slightly more expensive than the same instance with MySQL on RDS ($0.24)

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?

Good question.

"Storage consumed by your database, up to 64 TB, is billed at $0.10 a GB per month and IOs consumed by your database are billed at $0.20 per million requests"

Sounds like the replication is included in this, but Amazon really should clarify that.

Based on how Amazon's pricing tables are, it should be included.

If you go to the normal RDS pricing, there's "Single AZ" and "Multi AZ" pricing. The Multi is 2x Single because it transparently runs the 2nd instance. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/

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.

Right, but you can also get much smaller MySQL instances. It's not necessarily an "ouch" given the capacity, but it is in combination with the fact that there are no smaller instance types.

If you need a smaller instance you are probably fine with regular MySQL instance though.

20% is "just slightly" more expensive?

For the claimed 5x performance and 6 way replication, it seems pretty cheap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com