Amazon RDS vs Redis To Go: 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, Redis To Go is detailed as "Simple Redis hosting". Redis To Go was created to make the managing Redis instances easier, whether it is just one instance or serveral. Deploying a new instance of Redis is dead simple, whether for production or development.
Amazon RDS belongs to "SQL Database as a Service" category of the tech stack, while Redis To Go can be primarily classified under "Redis Hosting".
"Reliable failovers" is the primary reason why developers consider Amazon RDS over the competitors, whereas "Heroku Add-on" was stated as the key factor in picking Redis To Go.
According to the StackShare community, Amazon RDS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 1435 company stacks & 526 developers stacks; compared to Redis To Go, which is listed in 9 company stacks and 4 developer stacks.
What is Amazon RDS?
What is Redis To Go?
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 Redis To Go?
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
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