Double digits makes sense. 100GB _per database_ is just a very different thing. But that’s also the
Double digits makes sense. 100GB per database is just a very different thing. But that’s also the point: orgs are used to large, monolithic databases, which makes changes and management risky. Many of us know what it’s like to have a database related incident caused by another team’s work or load.
A dominant reason everyone has big 100GB+ databases is because the cost of managing multiple database instances - the cost in operations AND dollars - is very high. You still pay by the hour. They take time to spin up. Managing backups is harder.
We think it’s going to be better for a lot of folks building new infrastructure to have 10+ 10GB D1 databases vs 1x 100GB database. And if you have legacy infrastructure, use Hyperdrive.
A dominant reason everyone has big 100GB+ databases is because the cost of managing multiple database instances - the cost in operations AND dollars - is very high. You still pay by the hour. They take time to spin up. Managing backups is harder.
We think it’s going to be better for a lot of folks building new infrastructure to have 10+ 10GB D1 databases vs 1x 100GB database. And if you have legacy infrastructure, use Hyperdrive.
