>the storage pricing [for dedicated clusters] is significantly cheaper than the storage pricing for shared clusters.
why is that? I was skeptical when they said there are no cold starts, your DB runs always and never shuts down to zero. It appears this is a billing innovation, to bill like serverless and put the cost of compute onto the storage column.
At some point your db is munching through costly ram and processor and oft times doing nothing. Serverless is meant to indicate a solution to this concern. it's just hard to see at a glance where the efficiency gains of this approach really are (seemless migrations and branching are cool and all) so it looks like it's too good to be true.
Just to set a bit more context, there are two types of clusters in Xata, shared and dedicated. For shared, we indeed bundle the CPU/memory cost into storage. This is because, typically, a small database also won't consume too much CPU/memory, so there is some correlation there.
For dedicated, pricing works the same as in Amazon Aurora.
> At some point your db is munching through costly ram and processor and oft times doing nothing. Serverless is meant to indicate a solution to this concern. it's just hard to see at a glance where the efficiency gains of this approach really are (seemless migrations and branching are cool and all) so it looks like it's too good to be true.
The efficiency gains, for small databases, are in using shared clusters. This breaks at larger scale due to the noisy neighbor problem, however, moving databases seamlessly from one cluster type to another makes it easy to choose the "right size for you".
why is that? I was skeptical when they said there are no cold starts, your DB runs always and never shuts down to zero. It appears this is a billing innovation, to bill like serverless and put the cost of compute onto the storage column.
At some point your db is munching through costly ram and processor and oft times doing nothing. Serverless is meant to indicate a solution to this concern. it's just hard to see at a glance where the efficiency gains of this approach really are (seemless migrations and branching are cool and all) so it looks like it's too good to be true.