--- title: CTP Topic 66 Exposing the differences between PostgreSQL RDS and Aurora type: cloud-learning source-type: video category: DevOps & SRE/01_AWS-Landing-Zone tags: - AWS - RDS - Aurora - PostgreSQL - CTP date-added: 2026-04-14 video-source: nas:///volume2/work/Public Cloud Learning Sessions/CTP _ Topic 66_ Exposing the differences between PostgreSQL RDS and Aurora.mp4 audio-source: "" status: summarized (Gemini 摘要) --- # CTP Topic 66 Exposing the differences between PostgreSQL RDS and Aurora **Source:** NAS `/volume2/work/Public Cloud Learning Sessions/CTP _ Topic 66_ Exposing the differences between PostgreSQL RDS and Aurora.mp4` **Type:** VIDEO | **Category:** 01_AWS-Landing-Zone **Status:** 🟡 Awaiting Whisper transcription → Summary --- ## 摘要 > ## RDS vs. Aurora: Key Differences Greg Klau presented a detailed comparison of PostgreSQL on Amazon RDS and Aurora, focusing on performance, cost, and use cases. The session covered choosing between the two, running blue-green and cross-region operations, monitoring, and network performance tweaks for high availability. ### Key Differences and Considerations * **Minimum Size and Cost:** RDS offers smaller, cheaper instances suitable for small databases, while Aurora has a higher minimum size and cost due to its architecture. * **Maximum Size and Performance:** Aurora scales to larger databases and offers better IO performance, making it suitable for databases exceeding 10-20 terabytes. * **Auto Scaling:** Aurora offers auto-scaling (Serverless v2) but with limitations on instance shapes, versions, and regions. * **Recovery Time Objective (RTO):** Aurora boasts a 30-second RTO, compared to RDS's two minutes in the event of an AZ failure. * **Storage Flexibility:** RDS provides more storage options (GP2, GP3, provisioned IOPS, magnetic), while Aurora charges per IO. * *With RDS, you get to choose multiple different storage mechanisms.* * *Aurora IO is generally unbounded because they're motivated to give you as much IO as you can consume because they're charging you per IO.* ### Architectural Comparison * **RDS:** Uses compute with attached storage (EBS). Multi-AZ setup involves another compute and storage node for failover. Replication across regions is asynchronous. * **Aurora:** Employs six EBS volumes across three availability zones, managed by Amazon. Adding compute uses the same cluster volume, avoiding data replication for read replicas. Aurora Global allows multi-region setups with asynchronous replication. * *With Aurora, you get six EBS volumes. They're spread across three availability zones.* * **Endpoints:** RDS has one endpoint per cluster, while Aurora has separate writer and reader endpoints. ### Database Switchover and Failover * **RDS:** Requires blocking access, forcing a new primary, destroying the old cluster, and rebuilding it as a standby. * **Aurora:** Allows clean, managed switchovers using Aurora Global, without re-replication. Failover involves promoting a secondary region and re-adding the failed region as a new global cluster after it recovers. ### Blue-Green Deployments (Aurora MySQL Only) * Aurora MySQL supports blue-green deployments for major version upgrades, creating a duplicate environment for testing before switching over. This involves logical replication to a green environment, with guardrails to prevent data loss. ### Monitoring * Both RDS and Aurora offer monitoring options via CloudWatch, Grafana, and Performance Insights. Performance Insights provides a view of database load, query performance, and wait times. * Aurora utilizes free local storage (ephemeral SSD) for temporary work, which is fixed per instance type. RDS uses EBS for temporary storage. ### High Availability Performance Tweaks * Lower DNS time to live (TTL) to one second for faster failover. * Adjust TCP Keep-Alive settings to detect database failures quickly. * Use JDBC connection string overloading with reader and writer endpoints for resilience. --- ## 关键概念 - --- ## 行动项 - --- ## 相关视频 > 配对视频笔记链接(生成后填入) --- *最后更新: 2026-04-14*