I don't get why using a multitenant setup for MySQL (like in the PHP days) isn't a much better solution for this, as it doesn't require many instances of MySQL (or many VMs each running a single instance), nor does it require constant resources. This does require constant resource use, and you incur the significant startup delay for what seems to me very little reason.
But I guess for Amazon, inefficiency translates to $$$, so wouldn't really make sense to do this.
I wonder that more generally about cloud as well. For many things making the backends multitenant would be far cheaper for the customers and just a bit more expensive for the providers ... there's the security aspect (but is it really that different ? Even with VMs the kernel and hypervisors still need to not leak information, and even with Physical servers the "reboot and recovery" and remote control mechanisms are often still avenues for security exploits)
This low level separation is easy and cheap to implement for the providers, but (it seems to me) much more expensive for the customers.
But I guess that's pretty much true for all cloud stuff. It provides automation, but at an operational cost, which is really not the trade off I'd like to make.
Comments
I don't get why using a multitenant setup for MySQL (like in the PHP days) isn't a much better solution for this, as it doesn't require many instances of MySQL (or many VMs each running a single instance), nor does it require constant resources. This does require constant resource use, and you incur the significant startup delay for what seems to me very little reason.
But I guess for Amazon, inefficiency translates to $$$, so wouldn't really make sense to do this.
I wonder that more generally about cloud as well. For many things making the backends multitenant would be far cheaper for the customers and just a bit more expensive for the providers ... there's the security aspect (but is it really that different ? Even with VMs the kernel and hypervisors still need to not leak information, and even with Physical servers the "reboot and recovery" and remote control mechanisms are often still avenues for security exploits)
This low level separation is easy and cheap to implement for the providers, but (it seems to me) much more expensive for the customers.
But I guess that's pretty much true for all cloud stuff. It provides automation, but at an operational cost, which is really not the trade off I'd like to make.