Cost Effective and Fully Cloud Managed Relational Database Service

Had A Really Great Experience with RDS, I have been evaluating Aurora with Native RDS so i will be talking more about Aurora in this Review

Pros

RDS provides support for verity of database systems like mysql, postgreSql, Maria DB, Oracle, Microsoft Sql and a hybrid Aurora (supports both mysql & psql) Resizing, network management processes like subnet and security group are easily manageable. Using Aurora it has become easy to transfer data from DB to S3 using "INTO OUTFILE S3" query Aurora is really faster when it comes to executing heavy flock of query simultaneously when compared with its native RDS, it increases the over all through put Aurora Server less is a extremely cost effective solution when used with proper configurations, it scales up and scales down as per its usage (pay per sec) Supports Auto Backing up and scheduled snapshotting which stores the DB snapshot in S3, which helps in recovery at times of data deleted by mistake or data corruption by some failure in the application etc Aurora provides Export Snapshot to S3 feature, its a additional feature towards data movement from RDS to S3, from this we can easily migrate data from RDS to Redshift or Athena via S3

Cons

Can't change subnet of a multi AZ RDS Database directly, to achieve this i had to first change my DB to single AZ Aurora Server less dose not scale up when used with low CPU utilising application, user should have given the flexibility to change the autoscaling parameter for Aurora server less (CPU utilisation 70%) Aurora the use of "INTO OUTFILE S3" query requires some additional setup steps at the s3 bucket end and IAM role which is well documented, but quite confusing, Aurora dose not support newer mysql or psql versions which are supported by its native RDS's Aurora when compared with its native RDS its slower for executing single queries, officers Aurora is really faster when it comes to executing heavy flock of query simultaneously, but at the least we expect Aurora to perform as the same level as its native RDS when it comes to single queries Aurora's Export Snapshot to S3 feature only supports Parquet file format, and on trigging Export it takes more time to start, it wold be better if the process starts instantaneously

Amazing relational database which is easy to setup and use provided you have the technical know how

AWS RDS can be linked with Victorops/splunk/slack and what not to constantly monitor the state of the database and set up alerts for catching problems. It can automatically save regular copies of the database.

Pros

ease of setup ease of taking snapshots no configurational drainers very easy to set up alerts for monitoring problems in the database debugging is a breeze.

Cons

It is easy to get lost without an UI. also replicating databases can get stuck sometimes if you don't know what you are doing. replication can be pain depending upon whether you want (master-master) or (master-slaves)

Will cost you all yourmoney.

Easy to setup. Very expensive. Play great with other AWS services. The main issue is that metrics collected manually will never meet AWS metrics which are used to bill your stack. And of course AWS point of view will be much costly. Their Enterprise Support can not understand why metrics extracted from DB itself do not meet billing metrics and will endlessly redirect you to yet another expert.

Pros

Requires minimum knowledge or time to set up the database. Everything you need is basically there. Documentation is fantastic. It just works and takes all the burden of infrastructure management from you. A handful of engines, version, and extensions to them are supprted. Integrated seamless to AWS infrastructure.

Cons

Price. It will literally eat 7/8 of your infrastructure budget. Metrics lies. Performance insight simply does not work. Note, this is an opinion of somebody who paid for AWS Enterprise support (sigh, that's me) Backups are not backups per se, this is filesystem rsync. So it is easy to end up with broken DB. Support is very poor.

Amazon RDS

We have created MySQL instance in RDS and have been using it for 2 years via My SQL, and it had been a smooth and amazing experience in terms of data backup and the service provided by RDS.

Pros

Amazon RDS allows creating DB instances in a very few clicks with full customization like engine type, size of class required, connectivity, availability, and durability. Also, all monitoring, eventing, and logs are very handy and displayed on the pictorial representation dashboard.

Cons

Honestly, Amazon RDS fulfills all the use cases for me and I haven't spotted any disadvantage in it.

AWS RDS Review

My company need a simple and fast scalable solution for managing MySQL databases therefore we chose RDS. Prior to RDS we were managing DB clusters installed on VMs on Hyper Visors, and it was a cumbersome job. Though switching to RDS does make our life easy but RDS is not a cheap solution though.

Pros

Easily Scalable as per need. AWS manage you infrastructure completely. Fast Disaster recovery if planned the architecture correctly. Multi AZ deployment and Read replica supported. Supported various DB services like MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server and Postgres. Backup procedure is very easy.

Cons

Cost on higher side. Lack of control on your DB instance, though it's good but at times you need some tweaking todo.