Amazon RDS vs Compose: What are the differences?
Developers describe Amazon RDS as "Set up, operate, and scale a relational database in the cloud". Amazon RDS gives you access to the capabilities of a familiar MySQL, Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server database engine. This means that the code, applications, and tools you already use today with your existing databases can be used with Amazon RDS. Amazon RDS automatically patches the database software and backs up your database, storing the backups for a user-defined retention period and enabling point-in-time recovery. You benefit from the flexibility of being able to scale the compute resources or storage capacity associated with your Database Instance (DB Instance) via a single API call. On the other hand, Compose is detailed as "We host databases for busy devs: production-ready, cloud-hosted, open source". Compose makes it easy to spin up multiple open source databases with just one click. Deploy MongoDB for production, take Redis out for a performance test drive, or spin up RethinkDB in development before rolling it out to production.
Amazon RDS belongs to "SQL Database as a Service" category of the tech stack, while Compose can be primarily classified under "MongoDB Hosting".
Some of the features offered by Amazon RDS are:
- Pre-configured Parameters
- Monitoring and Metrics
- Automatic Software Patching
On the other hand, Compose provides the following key features:
- One click, production-ready, cloud hosted MongoDB, Redis, Elasticsearch, PostgreSQL and RethinkDB, with additional databases in beta.
Every deployment features: database autoscaling based on data size usage - private VLAN, IP whitelisting, SSL, full-stack monitoring, custom alerts - HA and fault tolerance with automatic failover
"Reliable failovers" is the primary reason why developers consider Amazon RDS over the competitors, whereas "Simple to set up" was stated as the key factor in picking Compose.
PedidosYa, New Relic, and Sellsuki are some of the popular companies that use Amazon RDS, whereas Compose is used by StreetHub, Compose, and Gigzolo. Amazon RDS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 1408 company stacks & 509 developers stacks; compared to Compose, which is listed in 82 company stacks and 19 developer stacks.
What is Amazon RDS?
What is Compose?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Amazon RDS?
What are the cons of using Compose?
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
Over the years we have added a wide variety of different storages to our stack including PostgreSQL (some hosted by Heroku, some by Amazon RDS) for storing relational data, Amazon DynamoDB to store non-relational data like recommendations & user connections, or Redis to hold pre-aggregated data to speed up API endpoints.
Since we started running Postgres ourselves on RDS instead of only using the managed offerings of Heroku, we've gained additional flexibility in scaling our application while reducing costs at the same time.
We are also heavily testing Amazon RDS for Aurora in its Postgres-compatible version and will also give the new release of Aurora Serverless a try!
#SqlDatabaseAsAService #NosqlDatabaseAsAService #Databases #PlatformAsAService
We went with MongoDB , almost by mistake. I had never used it before, but I knew I wanted the *EAN part of the MEAN stack, so why not go all in. I come from a background of SQL (first MySQL , then PostgreSQL ), so I definitely abused Mongo at first... by trying to turn it into something more relational than it should be. But hey, data is supposed to be relational, so there wasn't really any way to get around that.
There's a lot I love about MongoDB, and a lot I hate. I still don't know if we made the right decision. We've been able to build much quicker, but we also have had some growing pains. We host our databases on MongoDB Atlas , and I can't say enough good things about it. We had tried MongoLab and Compose before it, and with MongoDB Atlas I finally feel like things are in a good place. I don't know if I'd use it for a one-off small project, but for a large product Atlas has given us a ton more control, stability and trust.
Back in 2014, I was given an opportunity to re-architect SmartZip Analytics platform, and flagship product: SmartTargeting. This is a SaaS software helping real estate professionals keeping up with their prospects and leads in a given neighborhood/territory, finding out (thanks to predictive analytics) who's the most likely to list/sell their home, and running cross-channel marketing automation against them: direct mail, online ads, email... The company also does provide Data APIs to Enterprise customers.
I had inherited years and years of technical debt and I knew things had to change radically. The first enabler to this was to make use of the cloud and go with AWS, so we would stop re-inventing the wheel, and build around managed/scalable services.
For the SaaS product, we kept on working with Rails as this was what my team had the most knowledge in. We've however broken up the monolith and decoupled the front-end application from the backend thanks to the use of Rails API so we'd get independently scalable micro-services from now on.
Our various applications could now be deployed using AWS Elastic Beanstalk so we wouldn't waste any more efforts writing time-consuming Capistrano deployment scripts for instance. Combined with Docker so our application would run within its own container, independently from the underlying host configuration.
Storage-wise, we went with Amazon S3 and ditched any pre-existing local or network storage people used to deal with in our legacy systems. On the database side: Amazon RDS / MySQL initially. Ultimately migrated to Amazon RDS for Aurora / MySQL when it got released. Once again, here you need a managed service your cloud provider handles for you.
Future improvements / technology decisions included:
Caching: Amazon ElastiCache / Memcached CDN: Amazon CloudFront Systems Integration: Segment / Zapier Data-warehousing: Amazon Redshift BI: Amazon Quicksight / Superset Search: Elasticsearch / Amazon Elasticsearch Service / Algolia Monitoring: New Relic
As our usage grows, patterns changed, and/or our business needs evolved, my role as Engineering Manager then Director of Engineering was also to ensure my team kept on learning and innovating, while delivering on business value.
One of these innovations was to get ourselves into Serverless : Adopting AWS Lambda was a big step forward. At the time, only available for Node.js (Not Ruby ) but a great way to handle cost efficiency, unpredictable traffic, sudden bursts of traffic... Ultimately you want the whole chain of services involved in a call to be serverless, and that's when we've started leveraging Amazon DynamoDB on these projects so they'd be fully scalable.
While we initially started off running our own Postgres cluster, we evaluated RDS and found it to be an excellent fit for us.
The failovers, manual scaling, replication, Postgres upgrades, and pretty much everything else has been super smooth and reliable.
We'll probably need something a little more complex in the future, but RDS performs admirably for now.
We are using RDS for managing PostgreSQL and legacy MSSQL databases.
Unfortunately while RDS works great for managing the PostgreSQL systems, MSSQL is very much a second class citizen and they don't offer very much capability. Infact, in order to upgrade instance storage for MSSQL we actually have to spin up a new cluster and migrate the data over.
Our PostgreSQL servers, where we keep the bulk of Wirkn data, are hosted on the fantastically easy and reliable AWS RDS platform.
We use Aurora for our OLTP database, it provides significant speed increases on top of MySQL without the need to manage it
RDS allows us to replicate the development databases locally as well as making it available to CircleCI.