[phamilton]

For anyone looking to compare to Aurora:

Aurora r6g instances are 1 vCPU per 8GB memory at $0.12978 per vCPU hr. The equivalent on AlloyDB is $0.15568

Aurora x2g instances are 1 vCPU per 16GB memory at $0.1885 per vCPU hr. The equivalent on AlloyDB is $0.24528

Given the additional memory/cache characteristics and the 2x performance claims, I'm guessing you'll want to go memory heavy, so it _might_ not be terrible to say that a 2 vCPU/16GB Aurora instance ($0.26/hr) may perform similarly to a 1 vCPU/16GB AlloyDB instance ($0.24528/hr).

Storage is cheaper on AlloyDB and data transfer likely is as well.

[mattashii]

> storage is cheaper on AlloyDB

AlloyDB is 0.30$/GB/month Aurora is 0.10$/GB/month

Where does Aurora gain 0.20$/GB/month in storage costs?

[phamilton]

My bad, I misread hourly vs monthly and lost track of zeros. Just a plain miss on my part.

However, I/O accounts for far more of our cost on Aurora than storage. It's likely that more than offsets the increased storage cost on AlloyDB.