| is this RDS Aurora or RDS "classic"? classic RDS is essentially control-plane-only - AWS spins up an EC2 instance on your behalf, installs the database software, configures replication, etc etc. but on the data plane, you're connecting to a more or less stock Postgres or MySQL instance. Aurora uses a more modern distributed design [0] akin to Spanner, CockroachDB, etc. they implemented their own quorum-based log layer as a storage backend, so it is now involved in both the control plane and data plane. classic RDS has been around long enough, and in essentially maintenance mode without many new features added, that I wouldn't expect weird behavior like this from it. so I'm guessing Aurora. YMMV, but personally I don't trust Aurora for databases I administrate. I use classic RDS for small stuff, but if I needed availability & throughput beyond what classic RDS with its single-node / scale-up-only model can offer, I would reach for CockroachDB or Cassandra or something similar. also if your database size is only 15gb you definitely don't need (and are overpaying) for a 200gb Aurora instance. your data fits in RAM on a mid-sized RDS instance. 0: https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2019/03/amazon-aurora-d... |
Thanks for your feedback. Aurora is something that we would definitely look in the future, but with the levels of workload that we are currently experiencing postgres RDS should work for quite a long time.
> CockroachDB or Cassandra or something similar.
I can't wait for a business use case where I need something like this :) but unfortunately right now this is not the case.