Amazon Aurora

It's suited where you have enterprise applications and integrate open-source databases without requiring a license.

We have around 500+ websites in which we are using Amazon Aurora. Most of them are huge in terms of content and transactions per minute that the databases handle. In my opinion, database encryption is well defined. It automatically upsizes, upscales the clusters that it provides per database.
Once we had an outage for around 30hours. We have one website which sends around 1.5k files at a time monthly to another vendor using the database. We had an outage once and had a backlog of around 12k files not being sent to our other vendor. But, support team was readily available in shifts the whole time, they passed on notes of what and how much work is done to their colleagues and resolved the issue within 30hours (which would have easily taken 4-5 working days to understand) for us.

Amazon Aurora is very well suited in situations where the application requires high scalability and has variable and unpredictable workloads. Also, real-time analysis and reporting could be performed easily using Aurora's read replica feature. Aurora might not be a good fit for applications that rely more on other cloud-based services such as Azure since there are some issues with regards to integrations.

reasonable resource for large scale with more defined schema. Users should avoid if your schema updates often

For running a high-traffic e-commerce solution that needs to handle a massive stream of user data, products and deal with inventory updates. It works really well and you can easily add replicas to deal with i.e. load balancing.

I used many Database management systems , I have even used MySQL, but yeah this is worth of cost and have a good security system, and has a faster deliver speed, which works smoothly and efficiently. Having this I have now stopped looking for other powerful databases, this is a perfect tool for large data handlers.

I really like Amazon Aurora for use as an db for an instance of Wordpress.

I think the performance is really good especially when you use it in a transactional use case.

High Traffic Web Applications:Aurora is an excellent choice for high-traffic web applications that require fast response times and high availability. Its ability to scale both read and write operations makes it a strong contender.

Very good for auto-scalable web environments with variable loads. Especially in its Aurora Serverless version. It is more expensive than the normal RDS, but it is worth it for the simplicity of scalability.Aurora Serverless v2 fixes many of the limitations of v1.

Best thing about Aurora is that it is server less and relational database. I like it personally because of its performance which is quite impressive and its instances provide us a great experience. Also if Aurora have a script embedded in it so that we can our queries easily and there will be no requirement of other services to make the connection of the database.

If you are in need of an MySQL or PostgreSQL database, forget about using those engines on your own, installing and maintaining them in your own servers. Instead use Aurora MySQL or PostgreSQL compatibility on AWS. You will be free from the heavylifting by allowing RDS to take care of updates, patching, backups and maintenance of the database and servers.
You simply will have to connect to the dabase and take care of the data.

I think Amazon Aurora is well suited in the database arena. Amazon Aurora abstracts the connections of the database instances relationships, with a sophisticated link point mechanism, achieving more speed when processing intermediate data, which is extremely positive for large volumes of data that need to be processed quickly. In my experience, Amazon Aurora is a powerful tool when replicating data, since it manages everything in its platform with read-only queries.

I think Amazon Aurora is well suited for migrating on-premise MySQL databases to the cloud, or for migrating existing Amazon RDS instances to a platform that's more suited for concurrency and high throughput applications. In my opinion, it's not (currently) appropriate for any database engines other than MySQL and PostgreSQL.

1. All Transactional Processes
2. Hosting a Web App
3. Storage of Structured Data

Amazon Aurora just works.My experience with Amazon Aurora has been nothing but excellent. The Aurora database platform has been easy to deploy, configure, monitor, and maintain, and its performance capabilities have been able to handle any amount of workload we've thrown at it.

As we just used the service to learn its basics, all systems seemed worked perfectly. I must say that overall, I’m very impressed. There are A LOT of limitations with this first release, but I believe that Amazon will do what Amazon does best, and keep iterating until this thing is rock solid.

It really depends on the use case. Do they really like Aurora and all the performance that it brings? Can they legally lag behind release versions by months? Since cost is also a major factor, the recommendation would have to be justified. The benefits are great, in most cases, Aurora isn't needed.

Amazon Aurora should be considered for those who need a fast and reliable cloud database service. It includes the main features of a MySQL database, using the latest trends in architectural principals. It ensures out-of-the-box fault-tolerance and high scalability. It is also very important for those who don’t want to worry about features and security updates. As the price is higher than a standard MySQL for instance, it should only be considered for higher applications where performance and scalability is really important.

It is best suited when you need an easily manageable auto-scaling relational database cluster in different secure locations on Amazon Web Services and not best suited when you're not using Amazon Web Services or you are seeking a cheaper option for testing only or for low traffic sites, or you require a NoSQL database instead.

Amazon Aurora is ideal for applications running in the well-known LAMP or LAPP stacks. It's generally great and the benefits of cloud-native elasticity, scale, security, ease to set up replicas and backups, and so on make it ideal for web-based applications. However, you need to be a tiny bit careful when using Aurora - and this is true for all products that generally emulate/simulate products. Generally, the more strange or exotic MySQL or Postgres features you are using, the more problems you're going to have with Aurora. However, as most LAMP/LAPP stacks aren't generally too exotic these tend to be edge cases that can be coded in other fashions.

Aurora is great for situations where databases require autoscaling and need high availability. For example, high traffic websites running on an autoscaling compute layer can benefit by being connected to a datastore that can scale along with them. Also any scenario that requires fault tolerance can benefit greatly from Aurora. Knowing that your DB can heal itself (to the best of its ability) can give developers and engineers confidence that their application will handle adverse scenarios in the event of failure conditions. Given the premium of running DBs with Aurora, I would not recommend using it for development environments. Given that Aurora is compatible with most common DB software, development environments can use cheaper, smaller RDS instances. When it comes time for deploying into a production environment, no changes would be needed.