4 ms·
Aside from S3, does anybody actually use those? Software that works with S3 tends to work with competing APIs as well; just change a config option. Even if you
by zenexer 6y ago
Aside from S3, does anybody actually use those?
Software that works with S3 tends to work with competing APIs as well; just change a config option. Even if you’re interfacing with the API directly (you probably shouldn’t do that—use some sort of abstraction layer instead), there are open source alternatives that support the exact same API.
SQS can be useful for getting data out of AWS without worrying about whether your callbacks are down. For example, if you’re using SES, you might want to know when emails bounce; you can have all those events sent to SQS, then pull them out whenever and store them in something more generic. I don’t think it’s particularly common to use SQS beyond that.
DynamoDB—is that even still a thing? Isn’t Cassandra basically DynamoDB 2, but open source?
Aurora is expensive and makes exporting data a pain. I have no intention of using it until it’s easy to set up external replication so I can fail over to other providers (or leave). No external replication, no business, especially at that price point. Aurora was quite a disappointment.
Beanstalk is another one of those things that nobody actually uses. That being said, it doesn’t really lock you into anything; it’s just a way to automate some basic AWS tasks, really. But it’s generally more trouble than it’s worth.
- lykr0n 6y agoI know where I work we're starting to use SQS, DynamoDB, and Aurora as we poorly expand into the cloud.
- rasguanabana 6y ago> Isn’t Cassandra basically DynamoDB 2, but open source? Yet you need to deploy it somewhere and maintain it. DynamoDB just works and that’s why people will happily pay extra because they can put effort on something more meaningful that maintaining a database.
- cmclaughlin 6y ago"Aurora is expensive and makes exporting data a pain. I have no intention of using it until it’s easy to set up external replication so I can fail over to other providers (or leave). No external replication, no business, especially at that price point. Aurora was quite a disappointment." Aurora MySQL supports raw access to the binlogs. Aurora Postres supports Activity Streams and Logical Replication. Both are well support by DMS, which can even support replicating and converting between different types of databases - it's designed to support moving into AWS, but nothing's stopping you to use it to replicate in the other direction. RDS is worth every penny, in my opinion. Of all the technology I've used in my career, it's one of the most impressive.
- zenexer 6y agoRDS is fine, but every time I evaluate Aurora, I'm disappointed. As for raw binlog access, that isn't sufficient for external replication, is it? Edit: Looks like it is now possible to enable external replication.