undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbjacokes4y ago0 comments

From what I can tell, they provisioned their DB instance(s) in a single AZ, but weren't aware that Aurora automatically provisions its own storage and always uses multiple AZs. We touch on the separation of compute and storage in the post.

I think the surprise is that it's not possible to have a truly "single AZ" Aurora database, even though you might have thought you provisioned your DB instances that way.

0 comments

frakkingcylons4y ago

I see. I haven’t used Aurora, but have had experience running write heavy workloads on RDS. EBS failures would regularly (like monthly) cause our write latency to spike up 3-5x. If Aurora’s storage layer architecture is more resilient to those types of problems, that seems like a huge win.

goeiedaggoeie4y ago

Should not be a surprise if you are using Aurora hopefully. Papers on the topic are very clear on how they scale the storage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbjacokes4y ago0 comments

I think the surprise is that it's not possible to have a truly "single AZ" Aurora database, even though you might have thought you provisioned your DB instances that way.

0 comments

frakkingcylons4y ago

goeiedaggoeie4y ago

Should not be a surprise if you are using Aurora hopefully. Papers on the topic are very clear on how they scale the storage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse