11
netikras
18d

One of the largest companies on the continent. Uses Oracle on AWS RDS with the beefiest resources available. It comes to the point where lowering the number of CPUs boosts the DB performance up (concurrency). Point is - Oracle is sweating hard during our tests. You can almost feel the smell of those hot ICs on AWS servers.

And then someone at higher levels, while sitting on a pooper, has a great idea: "I know! Let's migrate to Aurora! They say it's so much faster than anything there is!"

*migration starts*

Tests after migration: the database on the largest instance possible shits itself at 10% of the previous load: the CPU% is maxed out (sy:60%,us:40%), IO is far, far from hitting the limits.

Is it really possible Aurora will cope with the load better than Oracle? Frankly, I haven't seen any database perform better than Oracle yet. Not sure if it's worth to invest time in this adventure..

Comments
  • 5
    I'm not using aurora yet, but I'm waiting for when it's stable with baited breath. A serious competitor to Oracle would be a great thing for the industry.

    Right now it's positioned as competition for Postgres, mysql
  • 4
    I'd say it's not ready for prime time yet - at least where prime time is defined as a serious competitor to Oracle.

    Problem is, I'm sure with *some* workloads it is competitive, or faster. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's better with your particular workload of course, and I suspect that whatever you're doing just isn't that well optimised on Aurora.

    That being said, it sounds like you're a major AWS customer - so you could talk to them quite easily. Could be that you could work with the Aurora engineers and they take a look at why your workload is so slow, and use that knowledge to speed it up. Long shot I know, but it's probably the quickest route if you want an Oracle alternative - they just don't really exist at the mo.
Add Comment