Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) from Amazon Web Services.
N/A
Amazon S3
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Amazon S3 is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It's key features are storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.
Although the Rackspace service is not comparable, even though it is very good, it requires a lot of administration on my part. Regarding Atlas, although it is not the same as RDS in terms of provisioning and administration panel, I mention it because I found it simpler and more …
Previously used Media Temple database hosting (now GoDaddy). While that endeavor was also successful, the AWS RDS is more secure, with higher availability and better documentation.
The range of database possibilities offered by RDS, both in terms of hardware and software, is what I find appealing. The best feature of Amazon RDS is that it automatically creates database backups, increasing the reliability of systems and effectively enabling recovery at …
I selected AWS RDS over Azure because of the [number] of products AWS has that work together. The cost for RDS was cheaper than Azure's SQL also. I use Azure for MSSQL workloads and AWS for MySQL workloads. Probably the main reason was we wanted to use S3 and Azure doesn't have …
Though you could get similar functionality using Docker, Amazon RDS offers a more comprehensive SaaS solution.
With Docker, you still need to have an EC2 instance to install the Docker and manage backup scripts using EC2 snapshots or S3. But RDS provides that solution …
We originally were looking between FTP and Amazon S3 as a storage location for customer-created files. FTP had been used for years, but as it was a new product were didn't understand how much utilization would be needed. Amazon S3 won out because it was easier to integrate into …
As most of our work loads and the under laying platforms are build on EMR, Spark and AWS Lambda, we did not find HDFS a suitable solution to have all of our data in. HDFS was very costly as we had to maintain data nodes only for the sole purpose of maintaining the extra storage …
We chose S3 over Azure Storage because it integrated very easily and quickly with our existing AWS environment. S3 pricing was also cheaper than Azure at the time. S3 is also more mature and has been on the market 10 years longer than Azure Storage. Amazon also offers a higher …
I haven't been personally involved in the decision to use S3, but in comparison to Dropbox or Google Drive, this offers a less robust UI to modify things, while being a cheaper storage mechanism over the rest.
Amazon S3 is where you want to default to if you want to store a large amount of data. Compared to formatted data that you can store in Amazon RDS or DynamoDB, you can store your data in any format you want on S3. And the data retention policy can be really useful if you use S3 …
Amazon RDS is an ideal choice when you need rapid database deployment for your project due to its user-friendly configuration and robust automation support, including Terraform and CloudFormation. Being a managed service, AWS assumes responsibility for its management, ensuring reliability. However, it may not be the best fit if you require extensive control over your databases.
Amazon S3 is a great service to safely backup your data where redundancy is guaranteed and the cost is fair. We use Amazon S3 for data that we backup and hope we never need to access but in the case of a catastrophic or even small slip of the finger with the delete command we know our data and our client's data is safely backed up by Amazon S3. Transferring data into Amazon S3 is free but transferring data out has an associated, albeit low, cost per GB. This needs to be kept in mind if you plan on transferring out a lot of data frequently. There may be other cost effective options although Amazon S3 prices are really low per GB. Transferring 150TB would cost approximately $50 per month.
Automated Database Management: We use it for streamlining routine tasks like software patching and database backups.
Scalability on Demand: we use it to handle traffic spikes, scaling both vertically and horizontally.
Database Engine Compatibility: It works amazingly with multiple database engines used by different departments within our organization including MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle.
Monitoring: It covers our extensive monitoring and logging, and also has great compatibility with Amazon CloudWatch
Fantastic developer API, including AWS command line and library utilities.
Strong integration with the AWS ecosystem, especially with regards to access permissions.
It's astoundingly stable- you can trust it'll stay online and available for anywhere in the world.
Its static website hosting feature is a hidden gem-- it provides perhaps the cheapest, most stable, most high-performing static web hosting available in PaaS.
It is a little difficult to configure and connect to an RDS instance. The integration with ECS can be made more seamless.
Exploring features within RDS is not very easy and intuitive. Either a human friendly documentation should be added or the User Interface be made intuitive so that people can explore and find features on their own.
There should be tools to analyze cost and minimize it according to the usage.
Web console can be very confusing and challenging to use, especially for new users
Bucket policies are very flexible, but the composability of the security rules can be very confusing to get right, often leading to security rules in use on buckets other than what you believe they are
We do renew our use of Amazon Relational Database Service. We don't have any problems faced with RDS in place. RDS has taken away lot of overhead of hosting database, managing the database and keeping a team just to manage database. Even the backup, security and recovery another overhead that has been taken away by RDS. So, we will keep on using RDS.
I've been using AWS Relational Database Services in several projects in different environments and from the AWS products, maybe this one together to EC2 are my favourite. They deliver what they promise. Reliable, fast, easy and with a fair price (in comparison to commercial products which have obscure license agreements).
It is tricky to get it all set up correctly with policies and getting the IAM settings right. There is also a lot of lifecycle config you can do in terms of moving data to cold/glacier storage. It is also not to be confused with being a OneDrive or SharePoint replacement, they each have their own place in our environment, and S3 is used more by the IT team and accessed by our PHP applications. It is not necessarily used by an average everyday user for storing their pictures or documents, etc.
We had contacted the AWS technical support request handling team and was a good experience with them. It is very simple to raise a concern request stating your concerns and they are there to help you overcome it within few hours and 1-2 days. Additionally they also provide service/support plan options that can be of help.
AWS has always been quick to resolve any support ticket raised. S3 is no exception. We have only ever used it once to get a clarification regarding the costs involved when data is transferred between S3 and other AWS services or the public internet. We got a response from AWS support team within a day.
The main area that stuck out to me in looking at AWS RDS compared to Azure Data Lake Storage was still that RDS is simple to get up and running with over its competitors. The only negative and it holds true for both solutions is that can both be hard to estimate cost control at the beginning.
Overall, we found that Amazon S3 provided a lot of backend features Google Cloud Storage (GCS) simply couldn't compare to. GCS was way more expensive and really did not live up to it. In terms of setup, Google Cloud Storage may have Amazon S3 beat, however, as it is more of a pseudo advanced version of Google Drive, that was not a hard feat for it to achieve. Overall, evaluating GCS, in comparison to S3, was an utter disappointment.
RDS is costly and thus small business should avoid it as it might not be worthful (in ROI perspective)
Downtime is very low and there are automated backups thus we dont have to worry much about technical stuff and can focus more on marketing and sales
Due to various automated features such as automated backup etc we dont need a huge technical team thus reducing the cost of maintaining a huge technical team ,
It practically eliminated some real heavy storage servers from our premises and reduced maintenance cost.
The excellent durability and reliability make sure the return of money you invested in.
If the objects which are not active or stale, one needs to remove them. Those objects keep adding cost to each billing cycle. If you are handling a really big infrastructure, sometimes this creates quite a huge bill for preserving un-necessary objects/documents.
