Managed MySQL/PostgreSQL DB infrastructure and clusters
November 20, 2019
Managed MySQL/PostgreSQL DB infrastructure and clusters
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Google Cloud SQL
We use Google Cloud SQL with MySQL instances as our primary data storage for all our applications. Performance is great and configuring secure environments is straightforward. We reduced our DB maintenance tasks by 75% and our systems are running better than ever. Automatic backup policies and high availability replication are 1 click away.
Pros
- Configuring a high availability cluster of MySQL or PostgreSQL databases is as easy as choosing how many instances do you want to have. Read-only replicas of the master DB can also be used for read operations relying on the "almost instant" replication mechanisms available.
- Plays really well with other Google Cloud products, so interoperation with Cloud Functions, Cloud Run, Compute Engine, AppEngine, Kubernetes, VPC, etc. is straightforward and easy to secure, isolating the systems from outside.
- Uptime SLA is high and maintenance operations are planned and notified in anticipation. Network and CPU performance is really good.
- Automatic failover on high availability setups will automatically promote a read replica to master almost transparently for the client, so our applications will keep running even if the master DB server crashes.
Cons
- There are no multi-master replication options. That may be a problem on distributed, high load, high performance environments.
- Not many DB vendors available. MySQL came first, PostgreSQL took longer to be available and just now SQL Server is being offered as Beta.
- Can get pricey quickly if you need to grow fast and much.
- When first migrated to a cloud environment, the Cloud SQL instance had a higher cost than our former MySQL VM instance, but many other infrastructure costs had also been reduced and the total balance of our migration to the cloud was a reduction of 45% of our infrastructure costs.
- DB performance has increased and maintenance tasks reduced in a high percentage.
- Disaster recovery plans are easier to follow now than before our cloud migration.
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on that decision.
Now, between this and managing my own DB instances, only reasons to do that are if I need a DB vendor not available, if doing that will reduce operational costs significantly, or if I need to have full control over my data for regulatory or confidentiality reasons.
Now, between this and managing my own DB instances, only reasons to do that are if I need a DB vendor not available, if doing that will reduce operational costs significantly, or if I need to have full control over my data for regulatory or confidentiality reasons.
Do you think Google Cloud SQL delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Google Cloud SQL's feature set?
Yes
Did Google Cloud SQL live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Google Cloud SQL go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Google Cloud SQL again?
Yes
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation