6 ms·
Amazon RDS MySQL Now Starting at Just $19 a Month
- icey 14y agoI would love a Postgres RDS option, and am somewhat surprised Amazon hasn't offered one yet.
- newhouseb 14y agoYeah, I have to wonder if there's an exclusivity agreement with the Oracle licensing in RDS that requires that MySQL and Oracle be the only options for linux databases.
- gabrtv 14y agoSeconded. It's gotta be on the RDS roadmap.
- epaulson 14y agoSeconded, if it includes PostGIS. I'd love to have something in the cloud with operations over more than just points for small hobby projects.
- oops 14y agoI stumbled upon this http://enterprisedb.com/cloud-database http://enterprisedb.com/cloud-database recently which may be of interest. Haven't tried it myself though.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- drewda 14y agoHeroku offers a hosted and managed Postgres (including the option of PostGIS 1.5) that's on AWS: https://postgres.heroku.com/ https://postgres.heroku.com/
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jaredstenquist 14y agoThis is a great update. You certainly don't want to put anything production on here, but small applications would be great with this. Even a properly cached WP blog (low traffic) would do just fine on here. The automatic backups and rollback in RDS is worth way more than $19 alone.
- zeruch 14y agoThis is actually a small example of how Amazon keeps being aggressively competitive by making the pricepoint almost impossible for anyone else to match at scale.
- heretohelp 14y agoExcept for the part where I can fire up a $19.95/month Linode instance for running MySQL, sure. The advantage of Amazon is not cost, it's flexibility and ease-of-use. Questionable ease-of-use at that, given how horrid their web UI is. The vendor lock-in is concerning as well (not for RDS, more for other things).
- regularfry 14y agoThat's exactly backwards. Amazon are expensive; they're fighting on features, not price.
- acdha 14y agoThat's an odd way to restate what the original poster said. Your argument appears to be the tautology that AWS is expensive when compared to different services which do less.
- regularfry 14y agoFirst, that's not a tautology. Second, that's not my point. The OP is wrong in saying that Amazon are being price-competitive. That's not their strategy; you can see it by comparing their VM costs to just about anyone else out there. Amazon's strategy is to out-feature everyone and lock customers in precisely so that they don't have to compete on price.
- acdha 14y agoIt is the definition of a tautology: you're both saying the same thing but from different directions. AWS is trying to avoid room for equivalent services, not services which do less: they don't want a customer who's sensitive to $2/month but they do want people to say “ops is expensive, let's save our people for non-commodity jobs” Also, those cost comparisons almost universally compare spot pricing rather than reserved. If you run the numbers seriously AWS is not the bargain basement leader but it's a lot more even than the contrarian blog echo chamber would have you believe, particularly if you have bursty workloads, use some of their other offerings and/or need servers outside of the US/Europe.
- johnnytee 14y agoLooks like you can get it cheaper than $19 if you get a reserved instance.
- mark_l_watson 14y agoAbout $8.60/month with a 3 year buy in. Not bad. I will try one for a few weeks and see what kind of performance it provides. I was hoping that Heroku's new PostgreSQL service would be a good option for a hosted easy to use database but I have lots of small projects and Heroku's offerings are per database not per virtualized database server.
- whalesalad 14y agoYeah their pricing scheme is atrocious.
- notatoad 14y agoI could potentially use a hosted postgres solution, i just tried to go to heroku's site to look at what they've got. their homepage is currently an error message saying "no application is configured for this hostname". That certainly inspires confidence.
- spudlyo 14y agoNot a fan of RDS. It has all the same drawbacks of using an EBS partition for storage, but as far as I know you have no visibility (like await, iowat etc) to know when your storage subsystem starts to flake out. EBS removes a lot of Sysadmin & DBA headaches, but when you suddenly get mysterious DB stalls, good luck trying to figure out what's wrong. I've worked with some systems that used a software RAID10 array of EBS volumes, and when a single EBS volume started to flake out, they'd just kick it out of the array, and performance would improve. They'd then rebuild the failed replica during off hours. If you're going to rely on EBS for DB storage for anything in production, this seems like this is the way to go.
- seldo 14y agoI second this. While EC2 takes a bunch of really hard problems, allowing you to provision virtual servers at a moment's notice, the value proposition for RDS is much more marginal. It's simply not that hard to get MySQL up and running, even in a RAIDed configuration, and the fact that the underlying store is EBS means most of the advantage of RAID is spent simply overcoming the I/O handicaps of EBS. We prefer running our MySQL instances on ephemeral storage, which is physically closer to the instance, and deal with I/O volumes by using lots of replication.
- cheatercheater 14y ago> you have no visibility (like await, iowat etc) And you need this for the intended purpose why exactly? From the article: > The t1.micro RDS instance is a low cost instance type designed for low traffic web applications, test applications and small projects
- true_religion 14y agoHe's complaining about RDS in general, not this specifically priced offering of it.
- cheatercheater 14y agoSo what is he doing commenting on an article that talks about this specially priced offering of it?
- robryan 14y agoCurrently for one of my sites we have the web server and MySQL database on one medium instance. I assume performance would be a lot worse on a micro rds and same web box?
- jetsnoc 14y agoI sure wish they would allow the slaving of RDS instances to non-RDS instances (aka CHANGE MASTER TO). I would love to host a MySQL slave at Amazon AWS. Sure, I can get this done with an EC2 instance but how killer would a "DR slave" with rollbacks and automatic backup features be? Besides feature-sets I could eliminate quite a few delayed replication nodes and dedicated DR servers at hosted providers if they would offer this feature.