Comment by icedchai
1 day ago
I agree that building your backend on Lambda is terrible for many reasons: slow starts, request / response size restrictions, limitations in "layer" sizes, etc.
RDS, however, I have found to be rock solid. What have you run into?
The parent compares RDS to baremetal, which I think isn't a fair comparison at all. Especially since we don't know the specs of either of these.
I found RDS to be rock solid too, although performance issues are often resolved by developers by submitting a PR that bumps the instance size x2, because "why not". On baremetal it's often impossible to upgrade CPU just like that, so people have to fix performance issues elsewhere, which leads to better outcome at the end.
RDS works great, but it's far easier to scale a bare metal setup to an extent that makes RDS look like an expensive toy because you have far more hardware options
RDS is a good option if you want convenience and simplicity, though.
Managing database backups myself is something that gives me nightmares. I would refuse to use bare-metal dbs unless I have a dedicated team just to manage the database (or data that is okay to lose, like caching layers).
1 reply →
I don't know too much about the performance side of RDS, but the backup model is absolutely a headache. It's at the point where I'd rather pg_dump into gz and upload to s3.
I never had problems with RDS backup, but I never used it a ton or had really large DBs in it. What problems did you ran into?