AWS Glue Pricing Against AWS EMR
Answer :
Yes, EMR does work out to be cheaper than Glue, and this is because Glue is meant to be serverless and fully managed by AWS, so the user doesn't have to worry about the infrastructure running behind the scenes, but EMR requires a whole lot of configuration to set up. So it's a trade off between user friendliness and cost, and for more technical users EMR can be the better option.
@user2889316 - Did you check my question wherein I had provided a comparison numbers?
Also please note Glue is roughly about 0.44 per hour / DPU for a job. I don't think you will have any AWS Glue JOB that is expected to running throughout the day? Are you talking about the Glue Dev end point or the Job?
A AWS Glue job requires a minimum of 2 DPUs to run, which means 0.88 per hour, which I think roughly about $21 per day? This is only for the GLUE job and there are additional charges such as S3, and any database / connection charges / crawler charges, etc.
Corresponding instance for EMR is m3.xlarge & its charges are (pricing at 0.266 & 0.070 respectively). This would be approximately less than $16 for 2 instance per day? plus other S3, database charges, etc. Am considering 2 EMR instances against the default DPUs for AWS Glue job.
Hope this would give you an idea.
Thanks
If you use Spot
instance of EMR instead of On-Demand
it will cost 1/3rd of on-Demand price and will turn out to be much cheaper. AWS Glue
doesn't have that pricing benefits.
Comments
Post a Comment