> For clones you dont pay for the extra storage for the new database, only the delta if you add new data...

Considering how much they’re charging you just to query storage, that’s still a net negative. If anything, you’re going to pay MORE since you’re probably querying more.

> No observable Aurora downtime taken in over 5 months of experimentation

I manage somewhere north of 500 Aurora instances spread across dozens of clusters. We have one drop out at least weekly, if not more often.

> Over 46 billion transaction records indexed and available, compared to less than one billion stored in the former online Redis system

This isn’t unique to Aurora.

> 4.8 TB of data across all tables

Neither is this; also, it’s honestly not that big.

I doubt we’re going to convince each other of anything here.

> We have one drop out at least weekly, if not more often.

You mean an instance? A cluster wont go down because of that.

I dont work for AWS :-) and dont want to convince you of anything. But there is a reason why they developed Aurora, and DynamoDB and it was not because some software developer had hours to waste...