Hacker News Reader

Comment by chisleu | Hacker News Reader

Yep. Google hasn't met any of my needs when I play with it. I always end up back on AWS. Lambda is a stunning system IMHO.

I do like Google's new DB. It is like an easy to use spark w/ cassandra backend, all behind the scenes. Very nice.

View on HN

Lambda looks awesome... I'm tethered to Azure, so the closest I get is Azure App Service which works, but not as elegantly... Dokku-alt is working pretty well (testing now) as a deployment system... was looking kubernetes and the like, but it's overkill for my needs.

Doesn't Amazon's mysql api fronted db work similar to google's?

I'm no expert on that. I thought it was just managed Mysql. The google stuff scales pretty well for startups who are starting to blow up.

Assuming you're both talking about Google Cloud SQL and AWS RDS, then with RDS you can actually choose between MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, Oracle, or Amazon Aurora which is supposed to be compatible with MySQL 5.6. Google Cloud SQL only seems to mention MySQL.

For scalability, RDS gives you up to 3TB storage (1TB for SQL Server, 64TB for Aurora) and DB instances with up to 244GB RAM, 32 vCPUs and 10Gigabit network, whereas it looks like Google Cloud SQL is 100GB and 16GB of RAM. It looks like Cloud SQL provides managed replication/failover as standard; with AWS this is optional, but simple to set up. (I use RDS; never tried Google Cloud SQL.)

(I have no connection with either company, beyond being a customer.)

Amazon RDS for Aurora is what I was thinking of as being similar to Google's Cloud SQL... they're both mySQL API layers over the top of their BigTable/distributed backends.

I was talking about BigQuery.

I was actually thinking of Amazon RDS for Aurora[1], which seems to be a mySQL api layer over Amazon's BigTable backend. and similar to Google Cloud SQL.

[1] http://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com