Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) from Amazon Web Services.
N/A
MySQL
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
MySQL is a popular open-source relational and embedded database, now owned by Oracle.
N/A
Pricing
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
MySQL
Editions & Modules
Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
$0.24 ($0.48)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for MariaDB
$0.25 ($0.50)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for MySQL
$0.29 ($0.58)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for Oracle
$0.482 ($0.964)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for SQL Server
$1.02 ($1.52)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon RDS
MySQL
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
MySQL
Considered Both Products
Amazon RDS
Verified User
Employee
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Initially, we planned to move everything to Dynamo DB, however, we had our initial architecture with MySQL, so we thought it would be a good option to migrate and use AWS RDS which seemed to be a good idea actually. I feel the security and the placing it in a VPC, is one …
Amazon Relational Database Service manages MariaDB and MySQL, so if you need to use those databases, then Amazon Relational Database Service will manage everything from the installation to the incremental updates needed for operation. Not having to worry about maintaining a …
We've evaluated using [Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)] against same-capability configurations with MySQL/MariaDB, PostgreSQL, and even Amazon Redshift (though, we haven't evaluated redshift in quite some time). Assuming RDS checks all the boxes for the requirements of …
We used to have On-Premises servers with Microsoft SQL Server and MySQL databases. We used that for years, and we had a hard time and a lot of work involved in securing and updating the server. And not no mention that growth involves a lot of calculations and extra costs. …
At first GCP was considered, but it not very intuitive to use and maintain. We then wanted to run MySQL instances on EC2, which would have been a little cost effective but having limited man power and hassle of patching, scaling and backup led us to select more managed service.
These tools are not necessarily competing products. They integrate seamlessly once identity access is established and used to easily manage and support our MySQL RDS instances.
Running MySQL RDS was a simpler solution than running standalone MySQL servers as the semi-managed nature of RDS saved us the need to install, maintain, secure, and backup our database servers. Using MySQL RDS was in addition to running MongoDB Atlas workloads and allowed us to …
With the latest serverless technology Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) has an edge over all its competitors, it works really fast with high log retention.
MongoDB is nosql database and some clients prefer it. In our presentation we try to persuade them to use RDS with its pros and cons. The type of selection depends upon the actual need.
Every traditional rational Database requires server installation & accessing needs to be monitored periodically manually. But Amazon provides easy-to-access and monitor health and scale-up and scale-down option just by clicks without adding any additional hardware.
Oracle Autonomous Database is designed for Oracle Database workloads, making it suitable for organizations with existing Oracle investments. RDS supports various database engines. Autonomy and Automation: Oracle Autonomous Database places a strong emphasis on automation for …
Actually you can have most of these tools through AWS Relational Database Service as they are basically those technologies provided as a service. It is way better to have those products provided as a service through a huge and reliable infrastructure like AWS.
It's hard to identify how Amazon RDS stacks up against the databases they support, because to install and use a relational database in a production environment you need a Database Administrator to help install, configure and manage. Amazon RDS keeps the details simple enough …
RDS implements the databases we were interested in and allows us to focus on the application and not the management. AWS handles setting up the server and the database as well as upgrading the software when necessary. Security is simple, using security groups to allow or deny …
Amazon Relational Database Service will probably give you everything you need from a traditional manual DB setup, except everything is managed for you. The only downside is having to pay the premium for the service; however, the trade-off of not having to deal with the …
RDS provides all the features of databases you could host yourself, without all of the maintenance and headaches required, while providing more flexibility and lower TCO.
Honestly, there aren't a lot of great alternatives to RDS, and most likely the real alternative is just running an instance on your local box. While lots of other services (like Rackspace) offer hosted database solutions, RDS in my opinion, is the clear winner on price, …
Automated snap-shotting every 24 hours is, again something that I could just set up in minutes with a few clicks, though we also backup on cron jobs to elsewhere, and, because of our industry we have a HUGE "forensic logs" that initially live in the database but get archived …
Our other application components are all hosted within Amazon's systems already, and the tight coupling of RDS with the security groups and virtual private cloud offerings made locking down privacy and security much easier than integrating with an outside provider. The deeper …
Redshift is massively scalable but has some limitations that we weren't willing to accept (no JSONB). It also has its own distinct flavor of SQL, and there isn't as much content online about Redshift's flavor of SQL versus postgres'. In the end, we just didn't need to kind of …
MySQL provides the option to reduce support and maintenance cost when P0 Level 1 support is not really needed for databases used for noncritical use cases and workloads. Other versions that include Microsoft SQL, Amazon RDS, etc don't provide such options and are overkill. …
We chose MySQL because of its open-source nature and its compatibility with various systems, languages, and databases. It is easy to use and fast. Additionally, it has been in the market for more than 30 years now which makes it a reliable option when compared to its …
Verified User
Engineer
Chose MySQL
After Oracle bought MySQL, I have pivoted some projects to use MariaDB instead, which is a fork of MySQL and maintained by the community and original developers of MySQL. This is free under the GNU GPL, and is not impacted by decisions Oracle makes for MySQL. RDS has the …
MySQL has it's pros / cons. The best things about MySQL are that it is open-source/free and has such a vast community of users. If you want a free database MySQL is the quickest to use, but if you're trying to build a strong foundation for your company, I prefer Postgres. If …
MySQL is a standard across many industries and is familiar to most developers as a result. When comparing to something like MongoDB, most developers are more familiar and comfortable with MySQL. When comparing to something like Oracle, MySQL clearly wins in the expense …
There are so many SQL solutions, it's difficult to compare them all. MySQL has a huge community and suite of tools to help it. However, it doesn't have quite the upside as the paid solutions. It's comparable to something like Postgres and all depends on the tools and support …