Excited to see this, but holy shit is it unclear what expected costs could be. It seems like it might be on the cheap/affordable side of things, but it's not obvious. I almost prefer to just use Compose.io because at least the pricing is clear.
when ha would cost the same i.e. ~20€ than that would be amazingly cheap.
i mean on aws you would pay the same (20 €), but you need to pay 1 year upfront.. and if ha would be like 16 € you would only be a little bit more expensive than a 3 year aws rds offering (1€ per month), which is less a problem since the storage is cheaper and you are way more flexible (canceling and recreating to a bigger instance)
What's up with cloud instance naming schemes? I get this is kind of similar to Amazon, but man, I bet these are really unwieldy in conversations esp. if someone is new to a platform.
We know. That's why PostgreSQL pilots hopefully clearer pricing structure where you choose how much CPU and RAM is needed and pay per CPU and GiB of ram. No more `db-nX-<something>-X`.
You'll still see instance size names for a while though. I think D0-D32 are for first generation of CloudSQL (which is MySQL only). db-* are for second generation and match GCE instance names.
There's at least 2 performance dimensions for provisioning an instance: vCPUs and memory. Often also GPUs, local SSDs, local HDDs. And then you have multiple generations of hardware, which aren't 100% comparable to each other.
So coming up with a "fully systematic" naming scheme is not really possible without listing all the parameters, and then you lose the benefit of having a name.
