Split Compute and storage costs?
in progress
Jack I
I have an exercise I'm considering (an enhanced MusicBrainz Neo4j db).
I want to avoid having to manage the database, but I envisage my model will have a lot of nodes and edges, periodic updates, but I don't anticipate actually running that many queries and those that I do run will not be very involved.
Are there any plans to split the compute vs storage costs for the managed service the way that Snowflake does? The combined model I'm seeing at the moment actually makes it more attractive to use AWS, at least from a cost point of view.
Thx,
Jack
Aman Singh
marked this post as
in progress
Aman Singh
Merged in a post:
It would be nice to expand only the instance Storage
costa.fernando@jovensgenios.com
Hello,
I really like Neo4j and the Aura service makes it reliable and easy to deploy in Production.
My only feedback is the impeditive price, it can become too expansive. I'm founder and CTO of a brazilian education startup, Jovens Gênios, to make kids learning better and more engaging.
We current have about 200k nodes and 4M relationships in our Neo4j graph. To make it run on Neo4j Aura we need, at least, to use a 4GB/0.8 CPU/8GB instance, that costs $259.20/month. And we are almost having to switch to the next instance category and the conversion to brazilian currency makes it a no go for us.
But we only have to switch because we need more than 8 GB to storage our Graph, the ammount of RAM and CPU is fine. It would be nice if we could only pay for more storage space.
John Kennedy
Merged in a post:
More storage
Paul DeCoursey
Would like instance sizes with more storage but not with more memory