[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AWS r5.xlarge vs i3.xlarge

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:23 PM Riccardo Ferrari <ferrarir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By "small" I mean that currently I have a 6x m1.xlarge instances running Cassandra 3.0.17. Total amount of data is around 1.5TB spread across couple of keypaces wih RF:3.

Over time few things happened/became clear including:
  • increase amount of ingested data
  • m1.xlarge instances are somehow outdated. We noted that one of them is under performing compared to the others. Networking is not always stable/reliable and so on
  • Upgrading from 3.0.6 to 3.0.17 emphasized the need of better hardware even more (in my opinion).
Starting from here I believe that i3/r5d are already a much better option to what we have with a comparable price.

About the EBS: Yes, I am aware its performance is related to its size (and type) That is the reason why I was looking into a 600/900GB drive that already a much better option compared to our raid0 of spinning disks. Both i3 and r5d are EBS optimized

* These instance types can support maximum performance for 30 minutes at least once every 24 hours...

So if you check the *baseline* performance of r5d.xlarge (which also holds for i3.xlarge) you will see up to 106.25 MB/s throughput and up to 6000 IOPS.  That's already a lot, but you should still consider that to have a complete picture.