[suggala]

AWS RDS is 10x slower than BareMetal MySQL (both reads and writes). Slowness is mainly due to the reason that Storage is over network for RDS.

Not bad to invest some extra time to get better performance.

You are falling to “Appeal to antiquity” fallacy if you think something old is better.

[Nextgrid]

It's unlikely running it on K8S (which is itself going to run on underpowered VMs with networked storage) is going to help.

If you're gonna spend effort in running Postgres manually, do it on bare-metal and at least get some reward out of it (performance and reduced cost).

[derefr]

> It's unlikely running it on K8S (which is itself going to run on underpowered VMs with networked storage) is going to help.

On GCP, at least, you can provision a GKE node-pool where the nodes have direct-attached NVMe storage; deploy a privileged container that formats and RAID0s up the drives; and then make use of the resulting scratch filesystem via host-mounts.

[qeternity]

> It's unlikely running it on K8S (which is itself going to run on underpowered VMs with networked storage) is going to help.

What?? We run replicated Patroni on local NVMEs and it's incredibly fast.

[0xbadcafebee]

What you describe is still a fallacy because it's assuming that just because you can get better performance with BareMetal, that somehow this is a cheaper or better option. In fact it will be either more error-prone, or more expensive, or both, because you are trying to reproduce from scratch what the whole RDS team has been doing for 10 years.

[CuriouslyC]

I don't think anyone's arguing RDS doesn't have useful features. The problem is that it's stupid expensive for the performance you get. RDS makes a lot of sense when prototyping, and if you want a failover database with checkpoint backups, but having it be your primary database of record only makes sense if you're not developing a data product, otherwise your profit margin becomes Amazon's.