4 ms·
I guess there must be a usecase in missing here, but RDS is working so well for me, it's hard to imagine why I would not shift most of the operational concerns
by vcryan 4y ago
I guess there must be a usecase in missing here, but RDS is working so well for me, it's hard to imagine why I would not shift most of the operational concerns to this competent vendor.
The only thing I can think of is cost. My usage probably isn't high enough where there is any financial benefit to an alternative... but if it was, maybe I'd be considering this.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoI mean, yeah, cost is kind of the problem with AWS, especially for large amounts of data. Do your own cost/benefit of course, but for some of us it's a non-starter.
- solatic 4y agoIf you have a small project and you only need one or two RDS databases in production, stick with RDS. The cost isn't that high and you save a ton in aggravation. Yes you need to set up separate monitoring, firewalling, etc. but it's really not a big deal. When you start to have dozens or hundreds of databases in production, and developers asking "I need Postgres in production, why can't I just click a button and get a Postgres instance for my service in production?" then scaling the monitoring and firewalling gets a little more complicated. Hooking into standard Kubernetes monitoring and service meshes can really help to simplify things.