<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Database on cloudplz</title><link>https://cloudplz.cc/tags/database/</link><description>Recent content in Database on cloudplz</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cloudplz.cc/tags/database/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Migrating 50 Production Databases to Aurora with Under 3 Minutes of Downtime</title><link>https://cloudplz.cc/writing/database-migration-at-scale/</link><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://cloudplz.cc/writing/database-migration-at-scale/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Over about two years, we migrated around 50 production databases from on-premises MySQL to AWS Aurora. The largest were multi-terabyte, tier-0 systems with 24/7 write traffic. Most cutovers took under 3 minutes of downtime.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;That number is not the result of careful clicking during a maintenance window. It&amp;rsquo;s the result of treating the downtime budget as a &lt;strong&gt;design input&lt;/strong&gt;: once &amp;ldquo;3 minutes&amp;rdquo; is a requirement rather than a hope, every downstream decision — replication topology, rehearsal gates, connection draining, DNS weights — is forced into a specific shape. This post is the methodology that fell out of that constraint, plus what actually bit us along the way.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Vitess vs Aurora: Making the Right MySQL Scaling Decision</title><link>https://cloudplz.cc/writing/vitess-vs-aurora-mysql-scaling/</link><pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://cloudplz.cc/writing/vitess-vs-aurora-mysql-scaling/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;If you&amp;rsquo;ve outgrown single-instance MySQL, you&amp;rsquo;re facing an uncomfortable choice: build custom sharding logic into your application, migrate to a different database system, or adopt a clustering solution like Vitess.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;rsquo;s the short version, so you know whether to keep reading: &lt;strong&gt;after running Vitess in production for 3 years, we migrated off it — to Aurora.&lt;/strong&gt; Not because Vitess failed us, but because the one capability that justified its operational cost (horizontal write sharding) turned out to be a capability we never actually needed. If your write traffic genuinely exceeds what one large primary can take — think tens of thousands of writes per second sustained, not bursts — Vitess is likely your answer and this post will tell you what operating it really costs. If you&amp;rsquo;re below that bar, Aurora is almost certainly the better decision, and this post will tell you why.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>