I recently joined a company in the UK , and we extensively use Acumatica for all aspects. In the first week they had to do a snapshot of our data (not that big of a db, as it sub 50gb in size) … but it took almost 4 hours. This would make me think its MS SQL on a server.
Now my understanding of AWS and its supported databases (we host on AWS) is that AWS Aurora is SQL compliant, and as such Acumatica should run on it - this is a more robust for resilience and speed (read replicas, fast snapshots etc).
Perhaps in my naivety I am making an assumption, but does Accumatica in the backend, a typical setup us MS SQL ... and if so why not AWS Aurora ?
Is it cost or ??? Or any of you as customers running on AWS Aurora in the backend, and positives vs drawbacks.
Excuse the ignorance here, I just started, but nothing showed up on a search.
New to Acumatica - AWS Aurora question (Databases) vs SQL
Best answer by Dmitrii Naumov
+7Acumatica is primarily MSSQL based, but MySQL support is also there.
As far as I know, some people were running it on AWS Aurora, but we do not tests or support such configuration officially.
It would be interesting to pursue that as Aurora is a native cloud database with full MS SQL compatibility. So there is zero reason that I can see technically it wouldn't work, and yet its 5 times the throughput and multi region failover. Is there a method to flag this stuff up to Acumatica to get it as as supported endpoint? Upgrades / restores / etc would all natively be faster, with no need for any backend change to core code I would have thought.
+7
Great I just did that, please vote it up :-)
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.