6 ms·

I didn't see if there was a re:invent talk about it, but is it actuallly Cassandra under the hood? It seemed like it might just be the Cassandra API akin to Aur

I didn't see if there was a re:invent talk about it, but is it actuallly Cassandra under the hood? It seemed like it might just be the Cassandra API akin to Aurora being MySQL.

tyingq 7y ago
It happens to be Cassandra, but that did make me think about the way Amazon brands the Postgres compatible Aurora as "Aurora PostgreSQL". That's pretty lousy of them to take advantage of the name. I imagine the uptake would be lower if it weren't in the name, and they had to settle for just saying "Postgres Compatible" in the description. I also imagine AWS would come after me if I launched "XYZ Fargate" or similar.
- scarface74 7y ago
  There are two separate offerings. AWS offers Aurora/Postgres which is a fork of Postgres with Amazon’s own code and there is regular RDS/Postgres which is basically managed Postgres.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    I'm not talking about RDS. I'm talking about "Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL". That's what they call it. See this page, for example: https://aws.amazon.com/quickstart/architecture/aurora-postgresql/ https://aws.amazon.com/quickstart/architecture/aurora-postgr... As mentioned, they likely wouldn't tolerate a "Tyingq Typhoon Fargate" that was my Fargate clone.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It is Postgres. It’s using the same source code as a base and it’s compatible with all Postgres tools.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - tyingq 7y ago
        The storage backend isn't Postgres, and I assume the repeated use of the words "compatible" and "wire protocol" is on purpose, so they can continue to change it.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Who cares about the “storage backend”? How does that affect clients?
        meddlepal 7y ago
        Clients no, but if you have had a Postgres DBA optimize your database to take advantage of known Postgres storage backend behavior you may be in for unexpected performance degradation under the assumption "it's just Postgres". That said, I dust that's pretty uncommon.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well, you get the same problem if you have “network administrators” who took one AWS certification and call themselves “AWS Consultants”. In both cases you end up with suboptimal solutions. The lesson to learn is not that AWS shouldn’t be making storage optimizations, it’s that you don’t depend on a bunch of old school net ops “lift and shifters” who didn’t take the time to learn the environment and who think that the cloud is just an overpriced colo.
        sjwright 7y ago
        I realise the parent comment is being voted down, but I think it’s a good point. If you’re buying a managed service, why should it matter if Amazon twiddled with how it stores data? What matters is that it behaves exactly like PostgreSQL in every way—which I’m led to believe it does. There may be marginal resultant performance characteristics but they’re unlikely to be significant or wildly non-linear. My understanding is that this isn’t a storage engine rewrite, but a modification to the IO layer at the bottom of the storage engine. Still, if you want “pure” anything, run it yourself.
paulddraper 7y ago
AFAIK Aurora MySQL is largely MySQL code. That's certainly the case at least for Aurora PostgreSQL, but then again, Aurora PostgreSQL lags MySQL significantly [1] in features; maybe that is related. [1] https://github.com/pauldraper/aws-aurora-sql https://github.com/pauldraper/aws-aurora-sql
scarface74 7y ago
Aurora is basically a fork of Mysql that is more tightly integrated with AWS. On the other hand, DocumentDB with Mongo Support doesn’t use any code from Mongo.
redwood 7y ago
DynamoDB under the hood
- tnolet 7y ago
  Citation needed...
  - mmbleh 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1201924979647905792 https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1201924979647905792
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It seems just like Aurora then. The code is MySql/Aurora with AWS’s own storage layer.
    - tnolet 7y ago
      The tweet literally says “it’s Apache Cassandra under the hood”. Then it says the reused some tech from DynamoDB which can mean anything.
antman 7y ago
I remember in another thread here on HN an engineer chimed in and said it is Cassandrs.

I didn't see if there was a re:invent talk about it, but is it actuallly Cassandra under the hood? It seemed like it might just be the Cassandra API akin to Aurora being MySQL.

tyingq 7y ago

It happens to be Cassandra, but that did make me think about the way Amazon brands the Postgres compatible Aurora as "Aurora PostgreSQL". That's pretty lousy of them to take advantage of the name. I imagine the uptake would be lower if it weren't in the name, and they had to settle for just saying "Postgres Compatible" in the description. I also imagine AWS would come after me if I launched "XYZ Fargate" or similar.

scarface74 7y ago
There are two separate offerings. AWS offers Aurora/Postgres which is a fork of Postgres with Amazon’s own code and there is regular RDS/Postgres which is basically managed Postgres.
- tyingq 7y ago
  I'm not talking about RDS. I'm talking about "Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL". That's what they call it. See this page, for example: https://aws.amazon.com/quickstart/architecture/aurora-postgresql/ https://aws.amazon.com/quickstart/architecture/aurora-postgr... As mentioned, they likely wouldn't tolerate a "Tyingq Typhoon Fargate" that was my Fargate clone.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It is Postgres. It’s using the same source code as a base and it’s compatible with all Postgres tools.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tyingq 7y ago
      The storage backend isn't Postgres, and I assume the repeated use of the words "compatible" and "wire protocol" is on purpose, so they can continue to change it.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Who cares about the “storage backend”? How does that affect clients?
        meddlepal 7y ago
        Clients no, but if you have had a Postgres DBA optimize your database to take advantage of known Postgres storage backend behavior you may be in for unexpected performance degradation under the assumption "it's just Postgres". That said, I dust that's pretty uncommon.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well, you get the same problem if you have “network administrators” who took one AWS certification and call themselves “AWS Consultants”. In both cases you end up with suboptimal solutions. The lesson to learn is not that AWS shouldn’t be making storage optimizations, it’s that you don’t depend on a bunch of old school net ops “lift and shifters” who didn’t take the time to learn the environment and who think that the cloud is just an overpriced colo.
        sjwright 7y ago
        I realise the parent comment is being voted down, but I think it’s a good point. If you’re buying a managed service, why should it matter if Amazon twiddled with how it stores data? What matters is that it behaves exactly like PostgreSQL in every way—which I’m led to believe it does. There may be marginal resultant performance characteristics but they’re unlikely to be significant or wildly non-linear. My understanding is that this isn’t a storage engine rewrite, but a modification to the IO layer at the bottom of the storage engine. Still, if you want “pure” anything, run it yourself.

paulddraper 7y ago

AFAIK Aurora MySQL is largely MySQL code. That's certainly the case at least for Aurora PostgreSQL, but then again, Aurora PostgreSQL lags MySQL significantly [1] in features; maybe that is related. [1] https://github.com/pauldraper/aws-aurora-sql https://github.com/pauldraper/aws-aurora-sql

scarface74 7y ago

Aurora is basically a fork of Mysql that is more tightly integrated with AWS. On the other hand, DocumentDB with Mongo Support doesn’t use any code from Mongo.

redwood 7y ago

DynamoDB under the hood

tnolet 7y ago
Citation needed...
- mmbleh 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1201924979647905792 https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1201924979647905792
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It seems just like Aurora then. The code is MySql/Aurora with AWS’s own storage layer.
  - tnolet 7y ago
    The tweet literally says “it’s Apache Cassandra under the hood”. Then it says the reused some tech from DynamoDB which can mean anything.

antman 7y ago

I remember in another thread here on HN an engineer chimed in and said it is Cassandrs.