3 ms·
FWIW, we absolutely loved it at the last place I worked. We were all too happy to let AWS host our Postgres instance (RDS), our static assets (S3 and CloudFront
by gtaylor 11y ago
FWIW, we absolutely loved it at the last place I worked. We were all too happy to let AWS host our Postgres instance (RDS), our static assets (S3 and CloudFront), and a bunch of other things.
We weren't particularly locked in, either. We always had the option to run our own Postgres cluster (it just didn't make sense to spend the manpower on it for us). We could have hacked together our own CDN, but that wasn't our core business focus.
For small companies with low manpower, build on the services and get things done fast and as well as possible. It may cost more upfront than doing it on your own, but you are probably going to come out ahead by minimizing your maintenance/security/administration surface area.
- ademarre 11y agoIt sounds like you were using relatively loosely coupled AWS services. RDS doesn't change your programming interface to the database, it just hosts it. If you needed to, you could switch to a non-RDS Postgres server with only a configuration change to your core application. Contrast this with using AWS DynamoDB, which would likely be a major overhaul if you needed to switch to something that could be used outside of AWS.
- tootie 11y agoHaha, I just posted a nearly identical reply to another commenct. We actually just selected SimpleDB over DynamoDB for a new project specifically because it supports JPA annotations instead of a custom SDK. We know we're going to have to transition to a private datacenter in the near future so we have to avoid lock-in. SimpleDB beat out RDS just on price.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]