3 ms·
Honestly, if they just chose descriptive names that's about half the battle. Right now everything has difficult to decypher code names. RDS (Amazon Database) EC
by donatj 10y ago
Honestly, if they just chose descriptive names that's about half the battle. Right now everything has difficult to decypher code names. RDS (Amazon Database) EC2 (Server Instance) S3 (k/v filestore)
Oce you do learn their names, comes the inconsistencies. Why are Dynamo and Redshift not part of RDS while Aurora is? There's just no rhmye or reason to any of it. No unifying vision. Someone at Amazon needs to take the time just to organize it into logical collections.
- tptacek 10y agoIsn't Aurora just accelerated MySQL RDS? Dynamo and Redshift are database services, but they're not much like RDS. Of all the AWS database services and permutations, and there are many, RDS is the only one you really should know.
- wolf550e 10y agoDynamoDB is a sharded NoSQL thing with eventually consistent secondary indexes that is nothing like an RDBMS. RDS is very similar to Master-Slave RDBMS servers you would manage yourself in EC2s.
- mej10 10y agoDynamo and Redshift have much different use cases than any of the RDS services.
- Nacraile 10y agoYou do realize that the cited code names are all acronyms for simple descriptive names, right? (Relational Database Service. Simple Storage Service. Elastic Compute Cloud). It should surprise nobody that simple descriptive names are often inconvenient in day-to-day use, and hence get turned into abbreviations. > Why are Dynamo and Redshift not part of RDS while Aurora is? Because Aurora is a relational database (see above), and Dynamo and Redshift are not? Of course, it would seem that some marketing weasels managed to get into the organization; new names are fizzy opaque brands instead of the old descriptive-ish naming.
- carterehsmith 10y agoAccording to Amazon, the "R" in RDS is for "Relational". Dynamo is not a relational database, so it doesn't go in the RDS group.