Exploring Cost Comparisons for One Year
ClustrixDB offers high-transaction, high-value database customers a lower total cost of ownership than Aurora. To get an accurate picture on long-term costs, it is important to consider more than just the cost of the AWS instance versus the Clustrix instance and software subscription. Let’s look at two typical deployments of high-transaction workloads and compare the costs for a year.
Scenario: Overall Costs of Recommended Aurora vs. ClustrixDB Deployment
We compare the overall costs of a recommended Aurora vs. ClustrixDB deployment. Aurora is configured with a second db.r3.8xlarge as a replicant which can be promoted to the master. Clustrix does not need to ‘promote’ and handles instance failure seamlessly without downtime.
- ClustrixDB starts faster and stays faster until the hardware becomes overwhelmed. Up until that crossover point, ClustrixDB delivers more throughput at a lower latency rate (sub 20ms) than Aurora
- ClustrixDB costs less than Aurora
- ClustrixDB can scale overall performance (both read and write performance) by simply adding nodes to the cluster.
Costs for IOs
ClustrixDB and Aurora carry vastly different costs for IOs. Aurora charges for IOs because it used shared storage. ClustrixDB is deployed with no IO charges.
When you are a high-transaction solution deployed on Aurora, IOs can become the single biggest expense. Here are some examples of annualized IOPS fees for some high-transaction workloads taken by the average transactions per second of some of our customers:
If you are a high-transaction solution running on AWS, more than a third of your annual costs may come from IOs. Because ClustrixDB uses local storage on each instance for data, there are no fees for using shared storage. Choose the fastest and least expensive database for high-transaction workloads on AWS. Choose ClustrixDB.