How scalable is AWS+RDS+S3?
I'm considering moving my projects to the cloud, and a consultant proposed the following setup:
- Amazon RDS for database
- Amazon S3 for file storage
- Linux servers + load balancer (also Amazon) for running the website (PHP) (and storing the sessions in the RDS so that it'd work if the same visitor queries multiple servers)
I was under the impression that this would then be "automatically" scalable - as I would just clone the Linux server as demand increased (and that RDS and S3 is already automatically scaling - without the need for me to do anything if traffic should increase).
Have I understood correctly how the Amazon RDS and S3 works in terms of scalability, and would this be an OK setup for a site that expects to grow out of it's one-server-is-enough needs?
amazon-web-services amazon-s3 amazon-rds
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
add a comment |
I'm considering moving my projects to the cloud, and a consultant proposed the following setup:
- Amazon RDS for database
- Amazon S3 for file storage
- Linux servers + load balancer (also Amazon) for running the website (PHP) (and storing the sessions in the RDS so that it'd work if the same visitor queries multiple servers)
I was under the impression that this would then be "automatically" scalable - as I would just clone the Linux server as demand increased (and that RDS and S3 is already automatically scaling - without the need for me to do anything if traffic should increase).
Have I understood correctly how the Amazon RDS and S3 works in terms of scalability, and would this be an OK setup for a site that expects to grow out of it's one-server-is-enough needs?
amazon-web-services amazon-s3 amazon-rds
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
1
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06
add a comment |
I'm considering moving my projects to the cloud, and a consultant proposed the following setup:
- Amazon RDS for database
- Amazon S3 for file storage
- Linux servers + load balancer (also Amazon) for running the website (PHP) (and storing the sessions in the RDS so that it'd work if the same visitor queries multiple servers)
I was under the impression that this would then be "automatically" scalable - as I would just clone the Linux server as demand increased (and that RDS and S3 is already automatically scaling - without the need for me to do anything if traffic should increase).
Have I understood correctly how the Amazon RDS and S3 works in terms of scalability, and would this be an OK setup for a site that expects to grow out of it's one-server-is-enough needs?
amazon-web-services amazon-s3 amazon-rds
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
I'm considering moving my projects to the cloud, and a consultant proposed the following setup:
- Amazon RDS for database
- Amazon S3 for file storage
- Linux servers + load balancer (also Amazon) for running the website (PHP) (and storing the sessions in the RDS so that it'd work if the same visitor queries multiple servers)
I was under the impression that this would then be "automatically" scalable - as I would just clone the Linux server as demand increased (and that RDS and S3 is already automatically scaling - without the need for me to do anything if traffic should increase).
Have I understood correctly how the Amazon RDS and S3 works in terms of scalability, and would this be an OK setup for a site that expects to grow out of it's one-server-is-enough needs?
amazon-web-services amazon-s3 amazon-rds
amazon-web-services amazon-s3 amazon-rds
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
asked Apr 28 '13 at 15:00
Publicus
68031025
68031025
1
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06
add a comment |
1
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06
1
1
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you understood correctly. S3 is a distributed, highly scalable and reliable, fully-redundant storage. According to S3 start page, it is the same storage system used for Amazon.com. Do you expect to grow larger than that?
RDS, on the other hand, is more scalable and maintainable than setting up your own RDBMS on the cloud. You won't need to worry about maintenance, patching, etc (at least not in the level that you would in case you set up your own RDBMS). Scaling RDS is not that simple, though. You can have read-replicas (in case your application is read-intensive), and you can have a Multi-AZ deployment (but this improves reliability, not performance).
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f16264170%2fhow-scalable-is-awsrdss3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you understood correctly. S3 is a distributed, highly scalable and reliable, fully-redundant storage. According to S3 start page, it is the same storage system used for Amazon.com. Do you expect to grow larger than that?
RDS, on the other hand, is more scalable and maintainable than setting up your own RDBMS on the cloud. You won't need to worry about maintenance, patching, etc (at least not in the level that you would in case you set up your own RDBMS). Scaling RDS is not that simple, though. You can have read-replicas (in case your application is read-intensive), and you can have a Multi-AZ deployment (but this improves reliability, not performance).
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
add a comment |
Yes, you understood correctly. S3 is a distributed, highly scalable and reliable, fully-redundant storage. According to S3 start page, it is the same storage system used for Amazon.com. Do you expect to grow larger than that?
RDS, on the other hand, is more scalable and maintainable than setting up your own RDBMS on the cloud. You won't need to worry about maintenance, patching, etc (at least not in the level that you would in case you set up your own RDBMS). Scaling RDS is not that simple, though. You can have read-replicas (in case your application is read-intensive), and you can have a Multi-AZ deployment (but this improves reliability, not performance).
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
add a comment |
Yes, you understood correctly. S3 is a distributed, highly scalable and reliable, fully-redundant storage. According to S3 start page, it is the same storage system used for Amazon.com. Do you expect to grow larger than that?
RDS, on the other hand, is more scalable and maintainable than setting up your own RDBMS on the cloud. You won't need to worry about maintenance, patching, etc (at least not in the level that you would in case you set up your own RDBMS). Scaling RDS is not that simple, though. You can have read-replicas (in case your application is read-intensive), and you can have a Multi-AZ deployment (but this improves reliability, not performance).
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
Yes, you understood correctly. S3 is a distributed, highly scalable and reliable, fully-redundant storage. According to S3 start page, it is the same storage system used for Amazon.com. Do you expect to grow larger than that?
RDS, on the other hand, is more scalable and maintainable than setting up your own RDBMS on the cloud. You won't need to worry about maintenance, patching, etc (at least not in the level that you would in case you set up your own RDBMS). Scaling RDS is not that simple, though. You can have read-replicas (in case your application is read-intensive), and you can have a Multi-AZ deployment (but this improves reliability, not performance).
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
answered Apr 28 '13 at 15:05
Viccari
6,65932762
6,65932762
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
add a comment |
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
1
1
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
What are the limits to the RDS - how much of a workload can it handle before there's a need for partitioning or other measures? I'm assuming using RDS will be able to handle a lot more than a normal dedicated mysql server.
– Publicus
Apr 28 '13 at 15:24
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
This depends on a lot of things. The nature of your system, the nature of your requests, read vs. write workloads, etc. Also, RDS vs. a normal dedicated MySQL server advantages can vary. Since RDS adds a management layer on top of conventional MySQL instance(s), one could theoretically expect less performance. But with RDS, you can change your instance size (CPU, memory, storage) on-the-go, without impacting your clients. Auto snapshots, easy recovery are also advantages which improve your reliability and uptime a lot in the long term.
– Viccari
Apr 28 '13 at 16:55
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f16264170%2fhow-scalable-is-awsrdss3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
AWS and S3 shouldn't really give you any scalability problems. RDS is a normal database instance with decent I/O speed, so it'll pretty much scale as well as the chosen RDBMS does using normal configuration. Whether that'll be good enough depends on your projected requirements.
– Joachim Isaksson
Apr 28 '13 at 15:06