Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon S3 vs RocksDB: What are the differences?
Key Differences between Amazon S3 and RocksDB
Amazon S3 and RocksDB are both important tools in the world of data storage and management. However, they have some key differences that set them apart.
1. Scalability: - Amazon S3: Amazon S3 is designed to handle massive scalability. It can store and retrieve any amount of data from anywhere on the web. It is built to accommodate growing data volumes and can handle a tremendous number of requests per second. - RocksDB: While RocksDB is also scalable, it is better suited for smaller-scale applications. It is optimized for fast storage and retrieval on local disks or flash-based storage systems.
2. Data Durability: - Amazon S3: Amazon S3 provides high durability for data. It automatically replicates data across multiple devices and facilities within a region, ensuring that data is highly available and durable. - RocksDB: RocksDB, on the other hand, does not provide built-in data replication or durability features. It relies on the underlying storage system for durability.
3. Data Model: - Amazon S3: Amazon S3 is an object storage service, where each object is identified by a unique key within a bucket. It does not support complex data structures or indexing. - RocksDB: RocksDB is an embedded key-value store that supports a wide range of data models. It allows developers to create and manage complex data structures, supports atomic updates, and provides various types of indexes.
4. Performance: - Amazon S3: While Amazon S3 is highly scalable, its performance can be affected by factors such as network latency, request size, and the number of requests per second. It is optimized for high throughput rather than low latency. - RocksDB: RocksDB is designed for low-latency storage and retrieval. It is optimized for fast random reads and writes, making it well-suited for applications that require high-performance data access.
5. Cost: - Amazon S3: Amazon S3 pricing is based on the amount of data stored, the number of requests made, and the data transfer out of the service. It can be relatively expensive for storing large amounts of data. - RocksDB: RocksDB is an open-source project and can be used without any additional cost. However, the cost of underlying hardware and storage devices needs to be considered.
6. Use Cases: - Amazon S3: Amazon S3 is commonly used for storing and distributing static web content, backup and restore, data archiving, big data analytics, and as a content delivery network (CDN) cache. - RocksDB: RocksDB is often used as an embedded database within applications, providing fast and efficient storage for data caching, session management, and data indexing.
In Summary, Amazon S3 is a highly scalable object storage service, optimized for durability and availability, while RocksDB is an embedded key-value store, optimized for low-latency storage and retrieval, and flexibility in data modeling.
Hello! I have a mobile app with nearly 100k MAU, and I want to add a cloud file storage service to my app.
My app will allow users to store their image, video, and audio files and retrieve them to their device when necessary.
I have already decided to use PHP & Laravel as my backend, and I use Contabo VPS. Now, I need an object storage service for my app, and my options are:
Amazon S3 : It sounds to me like the best option but the most expensive. Closest to my users (MENA Region) for other services, I will have to go to Europe. Not sure how important this is?
DigitalOcean Spaces : Seems like my best option for price/service, but I am still not sure
Wasabi: the best price (6 USD/MONTH/TB) and free bandwidth, but I am not sure if it fits my needs as I want to allow my users to preview audio and video files. They don't recommend their service for streaming videos.
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage: Good price but not sure about them.
There is also the self-hosted s3 compatible option, but I am not sure about that.
Any thoughts will be helpful. Also, if you think I should post in a different sub, please tell me.
If pricing is the issue i'd suggest you use digital ocean, but if its not use amazon was digital oceans API is s3 compatible
Hello Mohammad, I am using : Cloudways >> AWS >> Bahrain for last 2 years. This is best I consider out of my 10 year research on Laravel hosting.
Minio is a free and open source object storage system. It can be self-hosted and is S3 compatible. During the early stage it would save cost and allow us to move to a different object storage when we scale up. It is also fast and easy to set up. This is very useful during development since it can be run on localhost.
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.
Pros of Amazon S3
- Reliable590
- Scalable492
- Cheap456
- Simple & easy329
- Many sdks83
- Logical30
- Easy Setup13
- REST API11
- 1000+ POPs11
- Secure6
- Easy4
- Plug and play4
- Web UI for uploading files3
- Faster on response2
- Flexible2
- GDPR ready2
- Easy to use1
- Plug-gable1
- Easy integration with CloudFront1
Pros of RocksDB
- Very fast5
- Made by Facebook3
- Consistent performance2
- Ability to add logic to the database layer where needed1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Amazon S3
- Permissions take some time to get right7
- Requires a credit card6
- Takes time/work to organize buckets & folders properly6
- Complex to set up3