Amazon Cloud Adds Hosted MySQL

1sockchuck writes "Amazon Web Services has added a relational database service to host MySQL databases in the cloud, and is also dropping prices on its Amazon EC2 compute service by as much as 15 percent. Amazon says the new service lets users focus on development rather than maintenance, but it will probably be bad news for startups offering database services built atop Amazon's cloud. Cloud Avenue warns that Amazon RDS should serve as 'a warning bell for the companies that build their entire business on Amazon ecosystem. ... They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.' Data Center Knowledge has a roundup of analysis and commentary on Amazon RDS and its impact on the cloud ecosystem."

Comments

A Little Disappointed

[Comatose51]

I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered. I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side. It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres. MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment. Postgres is open source and offers some great features.

Re:A Little Disappointed

[Fotograf]

well i am not IT pro or something, but what exactly is "new" on this cloud? I mean i have been clouding my websites, databases and file storage for years, they are called ISP. My provides, virtual or physical PC, SMB host, or full windows host, managed. Storage as much as one can pay for business and home users...?

Re:A Little Disappointed

[jcnnghm]

Very true. Hourly billing and the ability to quickly provision systems is what makes these services. For our newest application, we only purchased enough equipment to handle the application base load. Our application then monitors the acceleration of system response times, load, and requests to automatically provision cloud servers. Essentially, we'll transfer messaging servers to the cloud, then internally re-provision to handle the new application loads, depending on what the actual load looks like. When the load falls, we'll transition back.

The benefit of cloud computing is that for a few dollars a month, we can provision a few extra servers for the relatively few hours of peak load. This allows us to reduce our upfront cash outlay, while also allowing us to maximize our server usage.

Re:A Little Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon provides "Hardware as a Service". Much more useful (to me) than SaaS.

That seems to me like less vendor lock-in. You can move your software and data to your own servers and datacenter if you are dissatisfied. You just have to pay for the hardware you need at peak load rather than paying for what amounts to average load.

Re:Warning Bell

[Attila Dimedici]

I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.

To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.

Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.

If you base your business model on using the services of a bigger company to offer services to your customers, it is just a matter of time until that bigger company decides that they would rather get the money you are making than the money you are paying them. The only exception to that is if the service you are providing is a lot of work on a day to day basis (as opposed to being very difficult to develop, but then it basically runs itself), and is only of interest to a small niche market.

Optimization

[dingen]

I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.

I'm not sure what's so compelling

[HangingChad]

It rids the customers of any need for time consuming database administration tasks.

I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming. It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL. If you can do that, usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires. This isn't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead, licensing fees, and required add-ons. You can scale MySQL for the cost of hardware. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to let Amazon run my databases.

And then there's no question of who owns the data, who has access to it, and what happens to your data if you can't pay the hosting bill? If your application or web site is so wildly successful that you have to manage failover and load balancing, then you can afford to hire people to solve those happy problems.

Re:Showing their cards at last

[TooMuchToDo]

What you don't mention is that you pay a premium for using only what you need instead of building out your own infrastructure. In some cases, the premium is upwards of 100% (have had to run the numbers for several clients, for some it works out well, for some it's grossly more expensive).

Re:Showing their cards at last

[mwvdlee]

a cloud has properties that most datacentres do not.

Like what?