MySQL: you set it up, if the server fails, you have to fix it. You set up replication, replication fails, you have to fix it. It’s your alarms, you get up at 2:00 a.m., you set up backups. You deal with IP changes. You deal with your two+ boxes and their patches. Those servers are your responsibility. If their hypervisor needs an update you’re stuck with the boxes going down.
Aurora serverless: you don’t deal with any of that.
Saying they’re the same as like saying that a self-driving taxi is the same as leasing your own car. In both cases there are servers involved, But in one of the two cases you don’t have anything to do with the server.
All I’m hearing is that it still runs on servers 😡
MySQL: you set it up, if the server fails, you have to fix it. You set up replication, replication fails, you have to fix it. It’s your alarms, you get up at 2:00 a.m., you set up backups. You deal with IP changes. You deal with your two+ boxes and their patches. Those servers are your responsibility. If their hypervisor needs an update you’re stuck with the boxes going down.
Aurora serverless: you don’t deal with any of that.
Saying they’re the same as like saying that a self-driving taxi is the same as leasing your own car. In both cases there are servers involved, But in one of the two cases you don’t have anything to do with the server.
So serverless means the same as buying it as a service?
Pretty much.
Why not just call it IaaS then ?
Haha I know, parts of the software I work on uses serverless infrastructure. I’m just kidding