I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much higher capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and mobile applications that expects their data to grow significantly over time. I've asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses. DynamoDB storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB, that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time. However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too, not just how to maximize your profit.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Idan <lesbitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
> Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so
> expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
> I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much higher
> capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and mobile
> applications that expects their data to grow significantly over time. I've
> asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses. DynamoDB
> storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB,
> that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these
> limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time.
> However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards
> (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not
> implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too,
> not just how to maximize your profit.
DynamoDB: Cost Per Hour for read/write performance $0.01 for 50 reads of up to 1KB/second $0.01 for 10 writes of up to 1KB/second That's $7.50 per month each for reads and writes at a minimal level Cost for Bandwidth Nothing "In Region", Minimal otherwise. Cost for Storage $1/GB
RavenHQ: (Platinum Replicated Plan) Cost for Storage For 10GB: 500 For each GB over: $10
That's all you pay.
Now let's compare them, in a basic fashion. Both are replicated, both are full of goodies and fun things to be done. We aren't really here to compare features, in this case.
So onto thing that change between them.
Let's start with storage: 100GB Dynamo: $100/Month Raven: $590/Month
Performance: Dynamo: Costs as Above Raven: Nothing
So now RavenDB is behind by $490 a month. But what about performance? RavenDB just needs to match about 30 reads and 30 write packs per month (That's $450/month on Dynamo) I'm pretty sure that a RavenDB instance on the platinum plan can easily read 1.5MB/second (30x50x1KB), and can write 300KB/second (30x10x1KB). Especially since this guy <http://stuartcullinan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sqlserver-vs-mongodb-vs-ra...>had it going at 2.5MB/second for 2 and a half minutes, and Oren had it going at 2000 documents/second<http://ayende.com/blog/4622/ravendb-performance-optimizations>. And both of those are over a year old at this point.
On Dynamo you pay for storage and performance separately. In Raven you pay for storage and performance together.
Looking at $/GB doesn't give the whole picture, you really need to price out the whole thing.
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:24:51 PM UTC-4, Oren Eini wrote: > You aren't buying storage, you are buying processing power, servers, > indexing, etc.
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Idan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
>> Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so >> expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
>> I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much higher >> capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and mobile >> applications that expects their data to grow significantly over time. I've >> asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses. DynamoDB >> storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB, >> that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these >> limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time. >> However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards >> (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not >> implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too, >> not just how to maximize your profit.
That is pretty much the reason, yes.
We wanted to be able to charge a simple and easy to figure out number,
rather than a seemingly lower value that it is really hard to figure out
what you'll pay in the end.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Rangoric <rango...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To add to this.
> DynamoDB:
> Cost Per Hour for read/write performance
> $0.01 for 50 reads of up to 1KB/second
> $0.01 for 10 writes of up to 1KB/second
> That's $7.50 per month each for reads and writes at a minimal level
> Cost for Bandwidth
> Nothing "In Region", Minimal otherwise.
> Cost for Storage
> $1/GB
> RavenHQ: (Platinum Replicated Plan)
> Cost for Storage
> For 10GB: 500
> For each GB over: $10
> That's all you pay.
> Now let's compare them, in a basic fashion. Both are replicated, both are
> full of goodies and fun things to be done. We aren't really here to compare
> features, in this case.
> Performance:
> Dynamo: Costs as Above
> Raven: Nothing
> So now RavenDB is behind by $490 a month. But what about performance?
> RavenDB just needs to match about 30 reads and 30 write packs per month
> (That's $450/month on Dynamo)
> I'm pretty sure that a RavenDB instance on the platinum plan can easily
> read 1.5MB/second (30x50x1KB), and can write 300KB/second (30x10x1KB).
> Especially since this guy
> <http://stuartcullinan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sqlserver-vs-mongodb-vs-ra...>had
> it going at 2.5MB/second for 2 and a half minutes, and Oren had it going at 2000
> documents/second<http://ayende.com/blog/4622/ravendb-performance-optimizations>.
> And both of those are over a year old at this point.
> On Dynamo you pay for storage and performance separately.
> In Raven you pay for storage and performance together.
> Looking at $/GB doesn't give the whole picture, you really need to price
> out the whole thing.
> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:24:51 PM UTC-4, Oren Eini wrote:
>> You aren't buying storage, you are buying processing power, servers,
>> indexing, etc.
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Idan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
>>> Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so
>>> expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
>>> I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much higher
>>> capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and mobile
>>> applications that expects their data to grow significantly over time. I've
>>> asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses. DynamoDB
>>> storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB,
>>> that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these
>>> limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time.
>>> However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards
>>> (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not
>>> implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too,
>>> not just how to maximize your profit.
Hi Oren. I do have related question about RavenHQ. I have tested RavenDB with inserting 2 000 000 entities into RavenDB. Now I have Data folder with size almost 2 GB. So if I have several entities with similar number of records I will exceed size of 10GB that is maximum on RavenHQ what then ?
I realize that you will probably say that I need to do sharding but I don't see pricing for sharding in RavenHQ ?
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 20:55:32 UTC+2, Oren Eini wrote:
> That is pretty much the reason, yes. > We wanted to be able to charge a simple and easy to figure out number, > rather than a seemingly lower value that it is really hard to figure out > what you'll pay in the end.
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Rangoric <rang...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > wrote:
>> To add to this.
>> DynamoDB: >> Cost Per Hour for read/write performance >> $0.01 for 50 reads of up to 1KB/second >> $0.01 for 10 writes of up to 1KB/second >> That's $7.50 per month each for reads and writes at a minimal level >> Cost for Bandwidth >> Nothing "In Region", Minimal otherwise. >> Cost for Storage >> $1/GB
>> RavenHQ: (Platinum Replicated Plan) >> Cost for Storage >> For 10GB: 500 >> For each GB over: $10
>> That's all you pay.
>> Now let's compare them, in a basic fashion. Both are replicated, both are >> full of goodies and fun things to be done. We aren't really here to compare >> features, in this case.
>> Performance: >> Dynamo: Costs as Above >> Raven: Nothing
>> So now RavenDB is behind by $490 a month. But what about performance? >> RavenDB just needs to match about 30 reads and 30 write packs per month >> (That's $450/month on Dynamo) >> I'm pretty sure that a RavenDB instance on the platinum plan can easily >> read 1.5MB/second (30x50x1KB), and can write 300KB/second (30x10x1KB). >> Especially since this guy >> <http://stuartcullinan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sqlserver-vs-mongodb-vs-ra...>had >> it going at 2.5MB/second for 2 and a half minutes, and Oren had it going at 2000 >> documents/second<http://ayende.com/blog/4622/ravendb-performance-optimizations>. >> And both of those are over a year old at this point.
>> On Dynamo you pay for storage and performance separately. >> In Raven you pay for storage and performance together.
>> Looking at $/GB doesn't give the whole picture, you really need to price >> out the whole thing.
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:24:51 PM UTC-4, Oren Eini wrote:
>>> You aren't buying storage, you are buying processing power, servers, >>> indexing, etc.
>>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Idan wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
>>>> Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so >>>> expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
>>>> I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much higher >>>> capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and mobile >>>> applications that expects their data to grow significantly over time. I've >>>> asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses. DynamoDB >>>> storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB, >>>> that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these >>>> limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time. >>>> However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards >>>> (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not >>>> implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too, >>>> not just how to maximize your profit.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Radenko Zec <logic.rab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Oren.
> I do have related question about RavenHQ.
> I have tested RavenDB with inserting 2 000 000 entities into RavenDB. Now
> I have Data folder with size almost 2 GB.
> So if I have several entities with similar number of records I will exceed
> size of 10GB that is maximum on RavenHQ what then ?
> I realize that you will probably say that I need to do sharding but I
> don't see pricing for sharding in RavenHQ ?
> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 20:55:32 UTC+2, Oren Eini wrote:
>> That is pretty much the reason, yes.
>> We wanted to be able to charge a simple and easy to figure out number,
>> rather than a seemingly lower value that it is really hard to figure out
>> what you'll pay in the end.
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Rangoric <rang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> To add to this.
>>> DynamoDB:
>>> Cost Per Hour for read/write performance
>>> $0.01 for 50 reads of up to 1KB/second
>>> $0.01 for 10 writes of up to 1KB/second
>>> That's $7.50 per month each for reads and writes at a minimal level
>>> Cost for Bandwidth
>>> Nothing "In Region", Minimal otherwise.
>>> Cost for Storage
>>> $1/GB
>>> RavenHQ: (Platinum Replicated Plan)
>>> Cost for Storage
>>> For 10GB: 500
>>> For each GB over: $10
>>> That's all you pay.
>>> Now let's compare them, in a basic fashion. Both are replicated, both
>>> are full of goodies and fun things to be done. We aren't really here to
>>> compare features, in this case.
>>> Performance:
>>> Dynamo: Costs as Above
>>> Raven: Nothing
>>> So now RavenDB is behind by $490 a month. But what about performance?
>>> RavenDB just needs to match about 30 reads and 30 write packs per month
>>> (That's $450/month on Dynamo)
>>> I'm pretty sure that a RavenDB instance on the platinum plan can easily
>>> read 1.5MB/second (30x50x1KB), and can write 300KB/second (30x10x1KB).
>>> Especially since this guy
>>> <http://stuartcullinan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sqlserver-vs-mongodb-vs-ra...>had
>>> it going at 2.5MB/second for 2 and a half minutes, and Oren had it going at 2000
>>> documents/second<http://ayende.com/blog/4622/ravendb-performance-optimizations>.
>>> And both of those are over a year old at this point.
>>> On Dynamo you pay for storage and performance separately.
>>> In Raven you pay for storage and performance together.
>>> Looking at $/GB doesn't give the whole picture, you really need to price
>>> out the whole thing.
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:24:51 PM UTC-4, Oren Eini wrote:
>>>> You aren't buying storage, you are buying processing power, servers,
>>>> indexing, etc.
>>>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Idan wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I wanted to know a few things about hosted RavenDB ravenhq.
>>>>> Why it's so limited in storage capacity and why extra storage is so
>>>>> expensive? - Cloud storage is cheap, am I missing something here.
>>>>> I think that databases that fit to the cloud should support much
>>>>> higher capacities. I found it very limiting for enterprise applications and
>>>>> mobile applications that expects their data to grow significantly over
>>>>> time. I've asked this questions in many places, and already hears excuses.
>>>>> DynamoDB storage is cheap, so why can't ravenDB be cheap. $10/GB,
>>>>> that egregiousness. The only thing that I can think about putting these
>>>>> limitations is that you create the servers (shards) ahead of time.
>>>>> However, you can create a script that transfers that data to new shards
>>>>> (re-sharding) so capacity can grow. It's not so complicated, so why not
>>>>> implement such a feature. Think about the developers and their profit too,
>>>>> not just how to maximize your profit.
