Azure Elastic Pool vs AWS Aurora Complete Comparison: Architecture, Performance, Cost, and Selection Guide

🌏 閱讀中文版本

In the cloud computing era, database service choices directly impact application performance, cost control, and system reliability. Microsoft Azure’s SQL Database Elastic Pools and Amazon Web Services’ Aurora database represent two fundamentally different architectural philosophies: the former emphasizes multi-database resource sharing and cost optimization, while the latter focuses on exceptional performance and automated scaling for individual databases. This comprehensive guide compares their architectural designs, performance characteristics, cost structures, and ideal use cases to help you make informed decisions.

Azure SQL Database Elastic Pools: Cost Optimization Through Resource Sharing

Architecture and Resource Model

Azure SQL Database Elastic Pools enable multiple SQL databases to share a pre-configured set of compute resources (eDTUs or vCores), making them ideal for scenarios with databases having different peak usage periods. The core concept is “resource pooling” through statistical multiplexing, reducing overall resource requirements.

Resource Allocation Mechanisms:

• eDTU Model: Elastic Database Transaction Units combine CPU, memory, and I/O into standardized measurement units


• vCore Model: Virtual core model providing granular independent control over CPU, memory, and I/O


• Dynamic Resource Distribution: Databases can dynamically consume resources within the pool, limited by individual database max eDTU/vCore settings

Elastic Pool Configuration Example

Creating a Standard tier elastic pool using Azure CLI:

# Create resource group

az group create --name myResourceGroup --location eastus


# Create SQL Server

az sql server create 

  --name myserver 

  --resource-group myResourceGroup 

  --location eastus 

  --admin-user sqladmin 

  --admin-password P@ssw0rd!

# Create elastic pool (Standard 100 eDTU)

az sql elastic-pool create 

  --resource-group myResourceGroup 

  --server myserver 

  --name myElasticPool 

  --edition Standard 

  --dtu 100 

  --database-dtu-max 50 

  --database-dtu-min 10

# Add database to elastic pool

az sql db create 

  --resource-group myResourceGroup 

  --server myserver 

  --name myDatabase1 

  --elastic-pool myElasticPool

Advantages and Limitations

Key Advantages:

• Cost Efficiency: Multi-database resource sharing can reduce average costs by 30-50% compared to standalone databases


• Flexible Management: Unified management of performance tiers and backup policies across multiple databases


• SaaS-Friendly: Perfect for multi-tenant architectures with one database per tenant


• Optimized Resource Utilization: Databases with staggered peak periods can share resources effectively

Key Limitations:

• Resource Contention Risks: Potential “noisy neighbor” problems during peak periods


• Performance Ceiling: All databases share the pool’s total eDTU limit, cannot exceed pool capacity


• Manual Monitoring Required: Continuous monitoring and manual pool size adjustments needed


• Cross-Pool Movement Constraints: Moving databases between pools requires time

AWS Aurora: High-Performance Database with Decoupled Architecture

Innovative Architecture Design

AWS Aurora employs a cloud-native architecture with separated storage and compute layers, delivering significant performance and reliability improvements over traditional relational databases. Core innovations include:

• Distributed Shared Storage: Data automatically replicates to 6 copies across 3 Availability Zones (AZs)


• Log is the Database: Only redo logs are written to the storage layer, reducing I/O latency


• Auto-Scaling Storage: Storage automatically scales from 10GB to 128TB without downtime


• Fast Failover: Typical failover time under 30 seconds

Aurora Configuration Example

Creating an Aurora MySQL cluster using AWS CLI:

# Create Aurora MySQL cluster

aws rds create-db-cluster 

  --db-cluster-identifier myaurora-cluster 

  --engine aurora-mysql 

  --engine-version 8.0.mysql_aurora.3.04.0 

  --master-username admin 

  --master-user-password MyPassword123! 

  --database-name mydb 

  --vpc-security-group-ids sg-********89abcdef0 

  --db-subnet-group-name mysubnetgroup


# Create primary instance (Writer)

aws rds create-db-instance 

  --db-instance-identifier myaurora-instance-1 

  --db-cluster-identifier myaurora-cluster 

  --engine aurora-mysql 

  --db-instance-class db.r6g.large

# Create read replica (Reader)

aws rds create-db-instance 

  --db-instance-identifier myaurora-instance-2 

  --db-cluster-identifier myaurora-cluster 

  --engine aurora-mysql 

  --db-instance-class db.r6g.large

Advanced Features

Aurora Serverless v2:

• Automatically adjusts compute capacity (ACU, Aurora Capacity Units) in real-time based on workload


• Fine-grained control with 0.5 ACU increments


• Ideal for unpredictable or intermittent workloads

# Create Aurora Serverless v2 cluster

aws rds create-db-cluster 

  --db-cluster-identifier myserverless-cluster 

  --engine aurora-mysql 

  --engine-mode provisioned 

  --serverless-v2-scaling-configuration MinCapacity=0.5,MaxCapacity=16 

  --master-username admin 

  --master-user-password MyPassword123!

Global Database:

• Cross-region replication latency typically under 1 second


• Supports cross-region disaster recovery (RPO < 1 second, RTO < 1 minute)


• Local read performance with global consistency

Advantages and Limitations

Key Advantages:

• Exceptional Performance: Up to 5x throughput improvement over standard MySQL, 3x over PostgreSQL


• High Availability: 6-way replication with automatic failure detection and failover


• Automated Maintenance: Storage auto-scales without manual intervention


• Flexible Scaling: Supports up to 15 low-latency read replicas


• Backup and Recovery: Continuous backup to S3 with point-in-time recovery (PITR) up to 35 days

Key Limitations:

• Higher Cost: Approximately 20-30% more expensive than traditional RDS


• Auto-Scaling Cost Risks: Without proper limits, can generate unexpected charges


• Vendor Lock-In: Storage layer tightly integrated with AWS, high migration costs


• Compatibility Differences: While MySQL/PostgreSQL compatible, some features and behaviors differ

Performance Comparison Analysis

IOPS and Latency

Metric	Azure Elastic Pool (Standard)	Azure Elastic Pool (Premium)	Aurora MySQL
Max IOPS	400-1,600	1,750-7,000	10,000-200,000+
Read Latency	5-10 ms	2-5 ms	1-2 ms (local replica <1 ms)
Write Latency	10-20 ms	5-10 ms	5-10 ms
Storage Limit	4 TB (Standard) 4 TB (Premium)	4 TB	128 TB (auto-scaling)

Throughput Benchmark Results

Based on Sysbench OLTP testing (16 threads, 70:30 read-write mix):

• Aurora MySQL (db.r6g.2xlarge): ~25,000 TPS


• Azure SQL Premium P4: ~6,000 TPS


• Standard MySQL RDS (db.m5.2xlarge): ~5,000 TPS

Cost Structure Comparison

Pricing Models

Azure SQL Database Elastic Pools:

• Standard 100 eDTU: Approx. USD $150/month (includes 100GB storage)


• Premium 125 eDTU: Approx. USD $480/month (includes 250GB storage)


• Additional Storage: USD $0.115/GB/month

AWS Aurora MySQL:

• db.r6g.large (2 vCPU, 16GB RAM): Approx. USD $0.29/hour = USD $210/month


• Storage: USD $0.10/GB/month


• I/O: USD $0.20 per million requests


• Backup Storage: Backups exceeding database size charged at USD $0.021/GB/month

Real-World Cost Scenarios

Scenario A: 5 Small SaaS Databases (20GB each, low-to-medium usage)

Azure Elastic Pool (Standard 100 eDTU):

• Pool cost: USD $150/month


• Storage (100GB included): USD $0


• Total: USD $150/month

5 Separate Aurora MySQL instances (each db.t4g.small):

• Compute: 5 × USD $0.041/hour × 730 hours = USD $150/month


• Storage: 100GB × USD $0.10 = USD $10/month


• I/O (estimated 5 million): 5 × USD $1 = USD $5/month


• Total: USD $165/month

Conclusion: Azure Elastic Pools slightly cheaper with simpler management.

Scenario B: Single High-Performance Database (500GB, high throughput)

Azure SQL Database (Premium P6):

• Compute: USD $1,860/month


• Storage (500GB included in P6): USD $0


• Total: USD $1,860/month

Aurora MySQL (db.r6g.2xlarge):

• Compute: USD $0.58/hour × 730 hours = USD $420/month


• Storage: 500GB × USD $0.10 = USD $50/month


• I/O (estimated 50 million): USD $100/month


• Total: USD $570/month

Conclusion: Aurora significantly cheaper for high-performance scenarios (~70% savings) with superior performance.

Migration Strategies and Best Practices

Migrating from Traditional SQL Server to Azure Elastic Pools

1. Assessment Phase: Use Azure Migrate or Data Migration Assistant (DMA) to assess compatibility


2. Resource Planning: Calculate required eDTU or vCore based on historical performance data


3. Migration Methods:
   
   
   
   • Online Migration: Use Azure Database Migration Service (DMS) for near-zero downtime
   
   
   • Offline Migration: Use BACPAC export/import
   
   
   
   


4. Validation and Optimization: Monitor resource utilization post-migration and adjust pool size

Migrating from MySQL/PostgreSQL to Aurora

1. Architecture Preparation: Check application compatibility (especially storage engines and extensions)


2. Migration Tool Selection:
   
   
   
   • AWS DMS: Ideal for online migration with continuous replication
   
   
   • mysqldump/pg_dump: Suitable for simple migrations of small databases
   
   
   • Percona XtraBackup: Best for fast migration of large MySQL databases
   
   
   
   


3. Performance Tuning: Enable query cache, adjust parameter groups, configure appropriate read replica count

Decision Framework

When to Choose Azure SQL Database Elastic Pools?

• ✅ Managing multiple small-to-medium databases (SaaS multi-tenant applications)


• ✅ Databases with complementary usage patterns (staggered peak periods)


• ✅ Budget-conscious with desire to reduce costs through resource sharing


• ✅ Deep integration with Microsoft technology stack (.NET, SQL Server)


• ✅ Data volume under 4TB with moderate performance requirements


• ✅ Need for precise cost control and predictable billing

When to Choose AWS Aurora?

• ✅ Single or few high-performance databases with high throughput demands


• ✅ Data volume expected to grow rapidly (anticipating over 1TB)


• ✅ Require high availability (99.99% SLA) and cross-region disaster recovery


• ✅ Unpredictable workloads needing auto-scaling capabilities (Serverless v2)


• ✅ Need multiple read replicas (more than 5) for read scaling


• ✅ Value low latency (<2ms read latency) and high IOPS (>10,000)


• ✅ Invested in AWS ecosystem (Lambda, DynamoDB, S3 integrations)

Monitoring and Operational Best Practices

Azure Elastic Pool Monitoring

Track key metrics using Azure Monitor:

# Query elastic pool eDTU usage with Azure CLI

az monitor metrics list 

  --resource /subscriptions/{subscription-id}/resourceGroups/myResourceGroup/providers/Microsoft.Sql/servers/myserver/elasticPools/myElasticPool 

  --metric "dtu_consumption_percent" 

  --start-time 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z 

  --end-time 2025-01-15T00:00:00Z 

  --interval PT1H

Critical Alert Settings:

• eDTU usage > 80%: Consider increasing pool size


• Individual database frequently hitting eDTU limit: Consider raising database max eDTU or moving to standalone database


• Storage usage > 90%: Plan storage expansion

Aurora Monitoring and Optimization

Use CloudWatch and Performance Insights:

# Enable Performance Insights

aws rds modify-db-instance 

  --db-instance-identifier myaurora-instance-1 

  --enable-performance-insights 

  --performance-insights-retention-period 7


# Query Aurora replication lag

aws cloudwatch get-metric-statistics 

  --namespace AWS/RDS 

  --metric-name AuroraReplicaLag 

  --dimensions Name=DBInstanceIdentifier,Value=myaurora-instance-2 

  --start-time 2025-01-15T00:00:00Z 

  --end-time 2025-01-15T23:59:59Z 

  --period 300 

  --statistics Average

Performance Optimization Tips:

• Use query cache (MySQL) or adjust shared buffers (PostgreSQL)


• Configure multiple read replicas for read-intensive workloads


• Enable slow query logs and use Performance Insights to identify bottlenecks


• Consider Aurora Global Database for global low-latency access

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Can Elastic Pools and Aurora be used together?

Yes. Many enterprises adopt hybrid strategies: using Azure Elastic Pools for multi-tenant SaaS databases while leveraging Aurora for core high-performance workloads like real-time analytics or large-scale transactional systems.

Q2: How is Aurora storage charged?

Aurora storage charges are based on the actual space used by the database (allocated pages containing data), not the entire allocated space. After deleting data, running OPTIMIZE TABLE (MySQL) or VACUUM (PostgreSQL) releases space and reduces costs.

Q3: Can databases in an elastic pool use different SQL Server versions?

No. All databases within the same elastic pool must use the same SQL Server version and service tier (Standard or Premium).

Q4: Does Aurora support cross-cloud migration?

Aurora’s storage layer is deeply integrated with AWS, making direct migration to other clouds impractical. However, you can migrate via logical replication or export/import to standard MySQL/PostgreSQL, then move to other cloud platforms.

Q5: How to prevent Aurora Serverless v2 cost overruns?

Set MaxCapacity parameters to limit auto-scaling upper bounds and monitor ACU usage via CloudWatch alerts. Recommend setting budget alerts (AWS Budgets) to control overall spending.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Azure SQL Database Elastic Pools and AWS Aurora serve different use cases: the former optimizes cost and management complexity for multi-database environments through resource sharing, while the latter provides exceptional performance and automation capabilities for individual databases through cloud-native architecture.

Choose Azure Elastic Pools for SaaS applications with multiple small-to-medium databases, budget sensitivity, and need for predictable costs. Its resource sharing mechanism can dramatically reduce average costs (up to 50%), but requires accepting performance ceilings and resource contention risks.

Choose AWS Aurora for mission-critical applications requiring high performance, high availability, and rapidly growing data volumes. While unit costs are higher, its auto-scaling, low latency, and global replication capabilities can significantly reduce operational costs and business risks, potentially offering better long-term TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

Many enterprises adopt hybrid strategies: using elastic pools for multi-tenant databases while leveraging Aurora for core high-value workloads. We recommend making decisions based on specific performance requirements, cost budgets, data growth projections, and existing technology stacks, with proof-of-concept (PoC) testing when necessary to validate assumptions.

Last Tested: 2025-01-15 | Based on Azure SQL Database 2024 features and AWS Aurora MySQL 3.04.0 / PostgreSQL 15.4

Related Articles

• Azure SQL Post-Migration Performance Optimization: Query Statistics, Top SQL Analysis, and Index Tuning Guide
• IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS Concepts and Examples in Azure / AWS
• Azure / AWS 中的 IaaS、PaaS 與 SaaS 概念與應用範例
• Azure DMZ Implementation Guide: Complete Handbook for Security Professionals
• Azure IP Whitelist Security Best Practices