Download to read offline
Uploaded byMarco Tusa
Sync rep aurora_2016
The document is a comparative analysis of synchronous replication solutions in cloud environments, focusing on tests conducted by Marco Tusa using AWS services like EC2, PXC, and Aurora. It discusses performance implications based on workloads and machine sizes, noting that PXC performs better for smaller installations while Aurora excels in larger setups, albeit with some known limitations. The author also encourages exploring alternatives to enhance offerings for customers.
More Related Content
Similar to Sync rep aurora_2016
Sync rep aurora_2016
- 1.
- 2. Percona Live Europe2016 Comparing synchronous replication solutions in the cloud Marco Tusa Manager Consulting Amsterdam, Netherlands | October 3 – 5, 2016
- 3. — Marco “TheGrinch” — Open source enthusiast About me
- 4. A quick Overviewof recent tests done in AWS comparing EC2 with PXC and Aurora About tests http://goo.gl/d2Wq06 About Aurora https://goo.gl/o32HaV Overview
- 5. Use the RightTool for the Job… My Motto
- 6. … and dothe right thing! My Motto
- 7.
- 8. Small Boxes — EIP= 1 — VPC = 1 — ELB=1 — Subnets = 4 (1 public, 3 private) — HAProxy = 6 — MHA Monitor (micro ec2) = 1 — NAT Instance (EC2) =1 (hosting EIP) — DB Instances (EC2) = 3 (m4.xlarge) 16GB — Application Instances (EC2) = 6 (4) — EBS SSD 3000 PIOS — Aurora RDS node = 3 (db.r3.xlarge) 30GB Machines used Large Boxes — EIP = 1 — VPC = 1 — ELB=1 — Subnets = 4 (1 public, 3 private) — HAProxy = 4 — MHA Monitor (micro ec2) = 1 — NAT Instance (EC2) =1 (hosting EIP) — DB Instances (EC2) = 3 (c3.8xlarge) 60GB — Application Instances (EC2) = 4 — EBS SSD 5000 PIOS — Aurora RDS node = 3 (db.r3.8xlarge) 244GB
- 9. IIBench Small boxes Largeboxes üPXC/Galera stay consistent üAurora was better on large box (as expected)
- 10. IIBench Small boxes Largeboxes üPXC/Galera significantly less but then is consistent üAurora still less but consistent
- 11. IIBench Small boxes Largeboxes üPXC/Galera significantly less and consistent üAurora Taking longer but with Large was more stable
- 12. App Ingest multitable Small boxes Large boxes üPXC/Galera performing better on Small üAurora Much better on Large
- 13. App Ingest multitable Small boxes Large boxes üPXC/Galera performing better on Small üAurora Much better on Large
- 14. App OLTP multitable Small boxes Large boxes üPXC/Galera performing better on Small üAurora Much better on Large
- 15. App OLTP multitable Small boxes Large boxes ü PXC/Galera performing better on Small ü Aurora Much better on Large
- 16. App Tpcc-mysql multitable Small boxes ü PXC/Galera performing better on Small
- 17. App Tpcc-mysql multitable Large boxes ü Aurora Much better on Large
- 18. App Sysbench 250Tables Large boxes only ü Aurora Much better on Large
- 19. HA how long? Both the platform dimensions Some variance but not so significant as such I kept the old value
- 20. Execution latency Large boxes üAurora Much better on Large Small boxes
- 21. — For smallinstallation Aurora is not a good fit, PXC was working better — As workload scale and make sense to use larger boxes Aurora had shown better results, scaling as expected. — Aurora has still some issues (known): — Hard limit to 16k connections — When using hotspot it is easy to hit the 158 error problem (no is not the Full text error) — I am sure that I hit some connector issue here and there, exploring alternatives to the MariaDB solution may be a good thing to keep in mind (for the Aurora dev team). I like to provide to my customer alternatives, Aurora is one but … Conclusions
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25. Contacts To contact Me Marco.tusa@percona.com marcotusa@tusacentral.net Tofollow me http://www.tusacentral.net/ http://www.percona.com/blog/ https://www.facebook.com/marco.tusa.94 @marcotusa http://it.linkedin.com/in/marcotusa/ “No mission refused!”