Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon RDS vs Microsoft SQL Server: What are the differences?
Introduction
Amazon RDS (Relational Database Service) and Microsoft SQL Server are both widely used database management systems (DBMS) that offer various features and capabilities. However, there are key differences between the two that distinguish them from each other. In this article, we will explore and highlight these differences to provide a clearer understanding of their unique offerings.
Deployment and Management: Amazon RDS is a managed service that takes care of essential database administration tasks such as backups, software patching, and hardware provisioning, allowing users to focus more on their applications. In contrast, Microsoft SQL Server requires users to handle these management aspects themselves, providing more control but also more responsibility.
Scalability Options: Amazon RDS offers multiple scalability options, such as vertical scaling (increasing server size) and horizontal scaling (replicating databases to multiple instances). Microsoft SQL Server also supports scaling vertically, but horizontal scaling requires additional configuration and setup, making it a more complex process compared to Amazon RDS.
Availability and Fault Tolerance: Amazon RDS provides built-in features like automated backups, database snapshots, and Multi-AZ deployment, which ensures high availability and fault tolerance. On the other hand, Microsoft SQL Server requires manual configuration and setup for achieving similar levels of availability and fault tolerance, making it more time-consuming and potentially prone to errors.
Integration with Cloud Services: Amazon RDS seamlessly integrates with other Amazon Web Services (AWS) offerings, allowing easy integration with services like Amazon S3, Amazon CloudWatch, and AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM). Microsoft SQL Server offers integration with Azure services, but the level of integration may not be as comprehensive or tightly integrated as with Amazon RDS and AWS services.
Database Portability: Amazon RDS allows users to easily migrate their databases across different database engines supported by RDS, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, and SQL Server itself. Microsoft SQL Server, while providing tools for migration, does not offer the same level of flexibility and ease when it comes to migrating between different database engines.
Licensing and Costs: Amazon RDS offers a variety of licensing options for different database engines, including options for bringing your own licenses (BYOL), which can potentially lower the overall costs. Microsoft SQL Server, on the other hand, follows its own licensing model, which may have different cost implications and may require separate license purchases when used with certain cloud or hosting providers.
In Summary, Amazon RDS simplifies deployment and management, offers flexible scalability options, provides built-in availability features, extensive integration with cloud services, supports easy database portability, and provides different licensing options, making it a viable choice for many organizations. However, Microsoft SQL Server provides more control over management, scalability, and customization, but also requires a greater level of manual configuration and setup.
I am a Microsoft SQL Server programmer who is a bit out of practice. I have been asked to assist on a new project. The overall purpose is to organize a large number of recordings so that they can be searched. I have an enormous music library but my songs are several hours long. I need to include things like time, date and location of the recording. I don't have a problem with the general database design. I have two primary questions:
- I need to use either MySQL or PostgreSQL on a Linux based OS. Which would be better for this application?
- I have not dealt with a sound based data type before. How do I store that and put it in a table? Thank you.
Hi Erin,
Honestly both databases will do the job just fine. I personally prefer Postgres.
Much more important is how you store the audio. While you could technically use a blob type column, it's really not ideal to be storing audio files which are "several hours long" in a database row. Instead consider storing the audio files in an object store (hosted options include backblaze b2 or aws s3) and persisting the key (which references that object) in your database column.
Hi Erin, Chances are you would want to store the files in a blob type. Both MySQL and Postgres support this. Can you explain a little more about your need to store the files in the database? I may be more effective to store the files on a file system or something like S3. To answer your qustion based on what you are descibing I would slighly lean towards PostgreSQL since it tends to be a little better on the data warehousing side.
Hey Erin! I would recommend checking out Directus before you start work on building your own app for them. I just stumbled upon it, and so far extremely happy with the functionalities. If your client is just looking for a simple web app for their own data, then Directus may be a great option. It offers "database mirroring", so that you can connect it to any database and set up functionality around it!
Hi Erin! First of all, you'd probably want to go with a managed service. Don't spin up your own MySQL installation on your own Linux box. If you are on AWS, thet have different offerings for database services. Standard RDS vs. Aurora. Aurora would be my preferred choice given the benefits it offers, storage optimizations it comes with... etc. Such managed services easily allow you to apply new security patches and upgrades, set up backups, replication... etc. Doing this on your own would either be risky, inefficient, or you might just give up. As far as which database to chose, you'll have the choice between Postgresql, MySQL, Maria DB, SQL Server... etc. I personally would recommend MySQL (latest version available), as the official tooling for it (MySQL Workbench) is great, stable, and moreover free. Other database services exist, I'd recommend you also explore Dynamo DB.
Regardless, you'd certainly only keep high-level records, meta data in Database, and the actual files, most-likely in S3, so that you can keep all options open in terms of what you'll do with them.
Hi Erin,
- Coming from "Big" DB engines, such as Oracle or MSSQL, go for PostgreSQL. You'll get all the features you need with PostgreSQL.
- Your case seems to point to a "NoSQL" or Document Database use case. Since you get covered on this with PostgreSQL which achieves excellent performances on JSON based objects, this is a second reason to choose PostgreSQL. MongoDB might be an excellent option as well if you need "sharding" and excellent map-reduce mechanisms for very massive data sets. You really should investigate the NoSQL option for your use case.
- Starting with AWS Aurora is an excellent advise. since "vendor lock-in" is limited, but I did not check for JSON based object / NoSQL features.
- If you stick to Linux server, the PostgreSQL or MySQL provided with your distribution are straightforward to install (i.e. apt install postgresql). For PostgreSQL, make sure you're comfortable with the pg_hba.conf, especially for IP restrictions & accesses.
Regards,
I recommend Postgres as well. Superior performance overall and a more robust architecture.
Pros of Amazon RDS
- Reliable failovers165
- Automated backups156
- Backed by amazon130
- Db snapshots92
- Multi-availability87
- Control iops, fast restore to point of time30
- Security28
- Elastic24
- Push-button scaling20
- Automatic software patching20
- Replication4
- Reliable3
- Isolation2
Pros of Microsoft SQL Server
- Reliable and easy to use139
- High performance101
- Great with .net95
- Works well with .net65
- Easy to maintain56
- Azure support21
- Always on17
- Full Index Support17
- Enterprise manager is fantastic10
- In-Memory OLTP Engine9
- Easy to setup and configure2
- Security is forefront2
- Great documentation1
- Faster Than Oracle1
- Columnstore indexes1
- Decent management tools1
- Docker Delivery1
- Max numar of connection is 140001
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Amazon RDS
Cons of Microsoft SQL Server
- Expensive Licensing4
- Microsoft2
- Data pages is only 8k1
- Allwayon can loose data in asycronious mode1
- Replication can loose the data1
- The maximum number of connections is only 14000 connect1