I'm looking to improve my neglected production database, and some friends have recommended migrating to Postgres compatible Aurora. However, I've heard mixed opinions about its costs, with some saying it's too expensive. When I tried calculating potential expenses using the AWS calculator, the numbers seemed way too low to be realistic. I'm wondering if there's a better tool or method to gauge what the actual costs would be for this migration?
4 Answers
You should definitely check out the AWS Cost Explorer and the Pricing Calculator. They can provide you with insights on your AWS usage over time and help you better estimate costs for specific services. Here are the links: [AWS Cost Explorer](http://go.aws/cost-usage-report) and [AWS Pricing Calculator](http://go.aws/calculator). Just make sure to consider your actual I/O levels to get a more realistic price.
It really depends on what 'unrealistically low' means to you. Could you share the specific number you got? That might help clarify why it feels off. Also, keep in mind that AWS pricing can be tricky and varies greatly based on your usage patterns. Without seeing your estimates, it's hard to give a solid opinion.
If you're looking at Aurora, generally expect a price increase of around 10% to 20% compared to RDS, but that can heavily depend on your I/O needs. Have you considered whether your workload would benefit from the higher availability that Aurora offers? If not, staying with RDS might save you money.
One major factor is your I/O and IOPS requirements. If you know those, you can use an I/O optimized configuration, which might have a higher base cost but can save you in the long run if your usage is high. However, if you're not sure about needing it, it could end up being more than you need. Also, when restoring a large database, it might be cheaper to have it turned on temporarily.
Related Questions
Cloudflare Origin SSL Certificate Setup Guide
How To Effectively Monetize A Site With Ads