I am running Django Rest API on an AWS ec2-server. Right now the Api's are using MySql localhost database. Should I shift my database from MySql localhost to Amazon RDS instance?
As per what I Know for remote servers would take a little extra time to transmit the request and shared resources. Would this little extra time be worth migrating my database from MySql localhost to Amazon RDS instance?
I read this answer but it didn't helped me much.
MySql localhost vs Amazon RDS instance
An answer with all possible Pros and Cons will really be appreciated.
Pros for local MySQL
Slightly faster, because of proximity to the application
Cons for local MySQL
Not Easily Scalable
If you want to use autoscaling for your application load and traffic then you might have nightmares, because as you scale you will have even the MySQL servers running on each new node.
Pros for RDS
You don't have to worry about installing and maintaining MySQL server
You don't have to worry about scaling
You don't have to worry about load balancing
You don't have to worry about EC2 upgrades and patching
You don't have to worry about failure recovery because when you provision a Multi-AZ DB Instance, Amazon RDS synchronously replicates the data to a standby instance in a different Availability Zone (AZ)List item
Cons for RDS
Slightly slower due to network latency
It depends how database intensive your application is.
See this benchmark The local database blew RDS out of the water on query latency with low load.
The answer is probably use both? Use both a local Redis/MySQL for quick queries and an off server RDS for long queries over large data sets where paying the additional network latency makes sense.
Also think about using SQLite on S3. If you can easily shard your data, and most queries are read intensive it could be a lot cheaper, especially with something like Redis on the server to cache frequent queries.
If you want to really eek out performance per $$, you can use a lot of Pang's tricks by having a hierarchy of SQLite files.
At my company we are considering the possibility to migrate our MySQL dbs to AWS Aurora.
AWS documentation states:
What does "MySQL compatible" mean?
It means that most of the code, applications, drivers and tools you already use today with your MySQL databases can be used with Aurora with little or no change. The Amazon Aurora database engine is designed to be wire-compatible with MySQL 5.6 using the InnoDB storage engine. Certain MySQL features like the MyISAM storage engine are not available with Amazon Aurora.
I haven't been able to find a documentation exhaustively listing which MySQL features are not available with Amazon Aurora, and what kind of "little change" we might have to do if we decide to migrate.
What kind of non-BC change should we expect to encounter if we switch (appart from the non-support of the MyISAM storage engine)?
You should not expect any change. Most of the innovations of Amazon Aurora are in the storage and replication tiers, the query engine should behave exactly the same and code run unaltered.
However, MySQL is a completely separate development and organization, so it is quite challenging and risky to put compatibility in more precise terms than what you have found. Feel free to ask if there is any feature compatibility in specific you'd like to know more about.
I have an application database running with MySQL engine on Amazon RDS. For better availability of our data for users in all parts of the world I'm looking for the best solution.
In the previous version of the application, we mirrored our database in US and Singapore, so that users got a better performance in terms of speed and on our side, we had backup if any disaster occurred.
Now as we moved to Amazon, will having Multi A-Z Deployment serve us in the same way? I mean replicates the database in all regions but will RDS still work in a single region only?
I have done some studies but still not sure so please ask me any further questions if I'm being puzzling.
Thank you.
I think you need both the Multi-AZ and the Read Replica features of AWS RDS.
Multi-AZ just creates a non-accessible secondary DB in another availability zone and in case the primary fails, AWS would switch over to the secondary DB. So you have failover.
In the case you want to increase the performance, and your application can work in read-only mode in Singapore (for example), the Read Replica would be perfect. If writes are also required, you would need to route them to the primary read-write database.
AWS supports a combination of the two approaches.
RDS MySQL Multi-AZ deployments currently works only inside an Amazon EC2 region. RDS Read replica's also need to be present inside the same Amazon EC2 region. Inter region replication is the most requested feature in AWS RDS to replicate data to another RDS in Alternative Amazon EC2 region. It is in their road map currently.
I have an app whose database is being migrated to amazon RDS.
I experienced a significant drop of performance, due to the latency of the queries between RDS and our server (like 30s of loading time only because of the queries). There is no explicit caching, and the requests could be optimized a bit more, but this is still more than 10x slower than with a local database.
I this kind of performance drop expected? If yes, is there a way to use a cloud database with similar performances as a local one?
There have been some reported issues with poor performance of RDS by people. Although amazon as far as I've seen hasn't acknowledged these issues.
RDS (which is just a custom version of mysql) uses the ESB for the storage backend, and as I'm sure you are well aware of the failure they just had with that service.
I've read a lot of companies just running their own mysql DBs in EC2 instances becuase it's showns to have more reliable performance.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I realize a couple of basic differences between the two, i.e.
EC2 is going to be cheaper
RDS I wouldn't have to do maintenance
Other than those two, are there any advantages to running my database from RDS as opposed to a separate EC2 server acting as a MySQL server. Assuming similar instance sizes, are both going to run into the same limitations in terms of being able to handle a load?
To give you a little bit more info about my use, I've got a database, nothing too big or anything (biggest table 1 million rows), just high SELECT volume.
This is a simple question with a very complicated answer!
In short: EC2 will provide maximum performance if you go with a RAID0 EBS. Doing RAID0 EBS requires a pretty significant amount of maintenance overhead, for example:
http://alestic.com/2009/06/ec2-ebs-raid
http://alestic.com/2009/09/ec2-consistent-snapshot
EC2 without RAID0 EBS will provide crappy I/O performance, thus it's not even really an option.
RDS will provide very good (though not maximum) performance out of the box. The management console is fantastic and it's easy to upgrade instances. High availability and read only slaves are a click away. It's REALLY awesome.
Short answer: Go with RDS. Still on the fence? Go with RDS!!! if you enjoy headaches and tuning every last little bit for maximum performance, then you can consider EC2 + EBS RAID 0. Vanilla EC2 is a terrible option for MySQL hosting.
In this post there is an excellent benchmark between:
Running MySql on a Small EC2 + EBS
Running MySql on a Small EC2 + EBS + adjusted MySql parameters
A Small RDS
The benchmark is very good since it is not focused only in ideal conditions (only one thread) but also in more realistic scenarios, with 50 threads hitting the database.
RDS is not really a high availability system. Read the fine print in the RDS faq. During a failover event it can take up to 3 minutes to failover. Additional amazon will decide it needs to "upgrade" your rds instance and do a failover at that point which will take your database down for "up to 3 minutes" (our experience is that it can take a longer than that).
RDS high availability is very different than master - master or master - slave replication and is much slower. They don't use mysql replication but uses some kind of ebs replication. So in a failover situation it will mount the ebs on the backup machine, start mysql, wait for mysql to do failure recover (hopefully nothing got corrupted too bad), then do a dns switch.
I hope this helps you with you evaluation.
We chose to use EC2 MySQL instances because we have a high read volume and need master-slave replication. Of course, you can spin up multiple RDS instances and setup MySQL replication between them yourself, but we use Scalr.net, which manages that for you using EC2 instances.
Basically, we just tell Scalr how many MySQL instances we want at it keeps them up, automates the setup of replication, handles automatic failover of slave promotion to master if the master gets terminated etc. It does both SQL dump backups and EBS volume snapshots of the master. So, when it needs to create a new slave, it automatically temporarily mounts an EBS volume of the last master snapshot to initialize the slave DB, then starts replication from the appropriate point. All point and click :)
(and no, I don't work for Scalr or anything. Scalr is available as Open Source if you don't want to use their service)
Regarding the maintenance window question. If you use Multi-AZ then RDS will create a standby replica in another availability zone so that there's no down time for maintenance and you protect yourself against a zone failure.
That's what I'm planning to do in the next week or so. Of course it's going to cost you more but I haven't worked that bit out yet.
MySQL on EC2 vs RDS MySQL
Advantages of MySQL on EC2
Amazon EC2 Inter Region Replication
Copy Snapshots across Amazon EC2 regions
RAID 0 with EBS Striping in MySQL EC2
More than 3TB of Disk space ( You will not need this for your size) can be attached on MySQL on EC2.
Disadvantages of MySQL on EC2
Configuration, Monitoring and Maintenance compared to RDS
Point in time backups available in RDS
IOPS lesser than RDS MySQL ( even after RAID 0) currently, 10800 with 6 disks for MySQL on EC2 whereas 12500 IOPS 16KB on RDS MySQL
I have been trying out RDS for a few months and here are some issues I have:
Using SQL profiler is tricky. Since you cannot connect profiler directly to the server, you have to run some stored procedures to create a log file that you can analyze. While they offer some suggestions about how that is done, it is far from user friendly. I would only recommend that you have a certified SQL professional do this kind of work.
while Amazon backs up your instance, you cannot restore an individual database. I have a web app with several separate customer-specific databases and my solution was to launch an EC2 instance with SQL running on it to attach to the production RDB database and import the data and then back it up on the EC2 instance. The other solution was to use a 3rd party tool that creates a massive SQL script (on the app server) that will recreate the schema and populate the data back to a restore point.
I had the same question this weekend. There is a 4 hour downtime window per week for RDS where they do maintenance. RDS seemed more expensive if you can get away with a micro instance of EC2. (This is true of test instances which has minimum traffic) I also wasn't able to change the timezone of the RDS instance because I dont have permission.
I am now actually looking at http://xeround.com/ which is mysql on EC2 by another company. They do not use InnoDB, instead they have their own engine called IDG. I am just starting to investigate that but they are in BETA and will give 500MB of space.