The complexity of AWS versus bare metal depends on what you are doing. Setting up an apache app server: just as easy on bare metal. Setting up high availability MySQL with hot failover: much easier on AWS. And a lot of businesses need a highly available database.
A high availability MySQL server on AWS is about the same difficulty as on your own kubernetes instance (I've got a play one on one of those $100 N100 machines, got one with 16G mem). Then:
And then you can just provision MariaDB "kind", ie. you kubectl apply with something specifying database name, maximum memory, type of high availability (single primary or multimaster) and secret reference and there you go: new database, ready to be plugged into other pods.Dont you need ECC in your db nodes?
N100 is my homelab, for playing. For instance I have a kubernetes cluster running KubeVirt, which runs 5 VMs, which ... have a kubernetes installation (so I have multiple worker nodes doing a "distributed filesystem" all of which is resharing disks from the same SSD). My production servers are generally older Xeons with ECC ram, which are also running kubernetes.
N100 supports DDR5 memory (although 1 channel) but I believe DDR5 has some error correction... May not be full ECC
amazing how nobody even know about ECC these days.
see so many series B+ companies running DB and storage without a care in the world.
Most businesses really don't need that complexity. They think they do. Premature optimization.
If your database has a hardware failure then you could loose all sales and customer data since your last backup, plus cost of the down time while you restore. I struggle to think of a business where that is acceptable.
Why are you ignoring the huge middle ground between "HA with fully automated failover" and "no replication at all"?
Basic async logical replication in MySQL/MariaDB is extremely easy to set up, literally just a few commands to type.
Ditto for doing failover manually the rare times it is needed. Sure, you'll have a few minutes of downtime until a human can respond to the "db is down" alert and initiates failover, but that's tolerable for many small to medium sized businesses with relatively small databases.
That approach was extremely common ~10-15 years ago, and online businesses didn't have much worse availability than they do today.
I've done quite a few MySQL setups with replication. I would not call setup "extremely easy", but then, I'm not a full time DB admin. MySQL upgrades and general trouble shooting is so much more painful than AWS aurora where everything just takes a few clicks. And things like blue/green deployment, where you replicate your entire setup to try out a DB upgrade, are really hard to do onprem.
Without specifics it's hard to respond. But speaking as a software engineer who has been using MySQL for 22 years and learned administrative tasks as-needed over the years, personally I can't relate to anything you are saying here! What part of async replication setup did you find painful? How does Aurora help with troubleshooting? Why use blue/green for upgrade testing when there are much simpler and less expensive approaches using open source tools?
When I worked at AWS, the majority of customers who thought they had database backups had not tested recovery. The majority of them could not recover. At that point, RDS sells itself.
The other huge middle ground here is developer competency and meticulousness.
People radically overestimate how competent the average company writing software is.
Putting aside the fact that replication and backups are separate operational topics -- even if a company has no competent backend engineers, there are plenty of good database consultancies that can help with this sort of thing, as a one-time cost, which ends up being cheaper than the ongoing markup of a managed cloud database product.
There's also a big difference between incompetent and inexperienced. Operational incidents are how your team gains experience!
Leaning on managed cloud services can definitely make sense when you're a small startup, but as a company matures and grows, it becomes a crutch -- and an expensive one at that.
My "Homeserver" with its database running on an old laptop has less downtime than AWS.
I expect most, if not 99%, of all businesses can cope with a hardware failure and the associated downtime while restoring to a different server, judging from the impact of the recent AWS outage and the collective shrug in response. With a proper raid setup, data loss should be quite rare, if more is required a primary + secondary setup with a manual failover isn't hard.
That's not the same as a "high availibility hot swap redundant multi region database".
Running mysqldump to a usb disk in the office once a day is pretty cheap.