Hacker News Reader

Comment by not_kurt_godel | Hacker News Reader

If only there were an AWS service that existed purely for solving these exact problems so that your most technically talented employees could spend time working on your product instead of dicking around with linux kernel settings.

View on HN

At the time of making this presentation AWS did not have anything in their offer that could match tuned MySQL on i2 instances. Aurora was just getting started.

But nowadays? I'm all in for Aurora.

According to OP, 800 IOPS was the bottleneck and i2 compute capacity was overkill. RDS offers provisioned IOPS (aka PIOPS) - up to at least 30000 at the time (https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2014/10/09/amazon...).

You mean migrate to GCE?

I mean RDS.

I think I would rather use GCE

https://thehftguy.com/2016/06/15/gce-vs-aws-in-2016-why-you-...

Ok, cool. However, switching to RDS would have been a no-brainer in the OP's particular scenario.

Not really. The migration of hundreds of terabytes of data from one storage solution to another is never a no-brainer, and it's not just because of technical concerns. RDS is a very good solution for a lot of people, but it's not the right fit for everyone.

OP spent multiple months playing around with the kernel and mysql parameters to solve the issue. What happens when they have to do the same thing for the next version of the kernel, or patches like Meltdown? RDS has entire massive teams dedicated to solving exactly this problem for OP's exact use-case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com