undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaaronbwebber6y ago0 comments

Is that saying that you are comparing Cockroach running on 81 c5d.9xls vs Aurora running on 2 r3.8xls? I get that part of what you are trying to show is that Cockroach will scale far past what any single-master system can, but it feels pretty lame to run a test comparing transaction throughput on 2900 cores vs 64 cores and a data set size comparison on 81 hosts vs 2.

The sysbench metrics seems like a much fairer comparison, and CockroachDB looks great in those metrics as well, so I don't really get why you are leading with a comparison that looks really sketchy at first glance.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

awoods1876y ago

Hi- product manager from CRL here. You are right--we hope to demonstrate that CockroachDB is built to scale horizontally. Deployments of CockroachDB can grow by easily adding more nodes to the cluster which in turn linearly scales throughput. We have posted the most recent published Aurora numbers as a comparison to demonstrate how architecture can influence scale.

We also hear your point about efficiency as tpmC (throughput) alone isn't sufficient to compare systems without taking hardware into account. TPC-C asks users to provide a tpmC per dollar amount. We conducted this price comparison previously in this blog post https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/cockroachdb-2dot1-perform.... These results are even lower in 19.2 because we can achieve greater tpmC with fewer nodes.

This page wasn't met to be competitive-we simply showed Aurora as a reference point. Since we want to focus on CockroachDB we will remove the Aurora comparison.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse