Hacker News Reader

Comment by omarforgotpwd | Hacker News Reader

Wanted to use this, but doesn't support small enough instance types.

Same here. Odd choices, but I'm assuming there's a reason for it.

Just a guess, but I would bet that they are looking for the people who want aurora+postgress on larger workloads (ostensibly housed in far fewer accounts/support-blast-radius) than to offer shards to thousands of one-off testers/smaller companies that may inundate the bandwidth of the actual human staff.

I thought the same, but the Aurora MySQL does allow smaller instances. So, waiting as well for smaller instances on Aurora Postgres...

Which particular types and combination of CPU/RAM would you like?

At a minimum, I'd like to see something half the size of the r4.large. The current r4.large is definitely bigger than I'd want to use for an experiment with a few users.

Jeff, that makes sense. We're working on it. Thanks for the information!

What instance types would you like to see? T2s? If so, which ones?

My team was hoping for db.t2.small and db.t2.medium so we could compare against similar sized regular Postgres instances.

Thanks for the replies - we're working on smaller instances, though we don't have a date yet!

We are also looking to test the small and medium t2s versus PostgresRDS on small and medium.

Where I work we currently run 2 RDS PostgreSQL Instances in production, one on T2.small and the other T2.medium.

We never run out of CPU credits. We are dying to move to Aurora but the current instance sizes prevent us :( until we fully move away from SQL Server where our load on PostgreSQL will increase, its a huge cost for 0 gain right now.

i have a postgres running on a t2.small in RDS right now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com