Amazon ElastiCache vs Google Cloud Storage: What are the differences?
Developers describe Amazon ElastiCache as "Deploy, operate, and scale an in-memory cache in the cloud". ElastiCache improves the performance of web applications by allowing you to retrieve information from fast, managed, in-memory caches, instead of relying entirely on slower disk-based databases. ElastiCache supports Memcached and Redis. On the other hand, Google Cloud Storage is detailed as "Durable and highly available object storage service". Google Cloud Storage allows world-wide storing and retrieval of any amount of data and at any time. It provides a simple programming interface which enables developers to take advantage of Google's own reliable and fast networking infrastructure to perform data operations in a secure and cost effective manner. If expansion needs arise, developers can benefit from the scalability provided by Google's infrastructure.
Amazon ElastiCache and Google Cloud Storage are primarily classified as "Managed Memcache" and "Cloud Storage" tools respectively.
Some of the features offered by Amazon ElastiCache are:
- Support for two engines: Memcached and Redis
- Ease of management via the AWS Management Console. With a few clicks you can configure and launch instances for the engine you wish to use.
- Compatibility with the specific engine protocol. This means most of the client libraries will work with the respective engines they were built for - no additional changes or tweaking required.
On the other hand, Google Cloud Storage provides the following key features:
- High Capacity and Scalability
- Strong Data Consistency
- Google Developers Console Projects
"Redis" is the top reason why over 53 developers like Amazon ElastiCache, while over 22 developers mention "Scalable" as the leading cause for choosing Google Cloud Storage.
According to the StackShare community, Amazon ElastiCache has a broader approval, being mentioned in 342 company stacks & 79 developers stacks; compared to Google Cloud Storage, which is listed in 179 company stacks and 74 developer stacks.
We choose Backblaze B2 because it makes more sense for storing static assets.
We admire Backblaze's customer service & transparency, plus, we trust them to maintain fair business practices - including not raising prices in the future.
Lower storage costs means we can keep more data for longer, and lower bandwidth means cache misses don't cost a ton.
We offer our customer HIPAA compliant storage. After analyzing the market, we decided to go with Google Storage. The Nodejs API is ok, still not ES6 and can be very confusing to use. For each new customer, we created a different bucket so they can have individual data and not have to worry about data loss. After 1000+ customers we started seeing many problems with the creation of new buckets, with saving or retrieving a new file. Many false positive: the Promise returned ok, but in reality, it failed.
That's why we switched to S3 that just works.
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Amazon ElastiCache?
What is Google Cloud Storage?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions