At work, we host all our webservers on Amazon EC2 and usually have used MySQL databases installed on the same box as our Apache webserver, and communicated with them on localhost
. We now face a need to migrate our database to its own server for one of our systems. I have a choice between two solutions: use Amazon RDS, or just launch a new Amazon EC2 box and install MySQL on it.
RDS, being a dedicated database service provided by the same company as EC2, seems like it ought to be the obviously better option. However, when I look at the pricing for the two options (see http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing and http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing) it seems that an RDS server costs almost twice as much as an EC2 server for a box with the same specs.
Given that I'm capable of handling backups myself and that EC2 offers the same ability to scale up the instance as required that RDS does, I can't see any reason at all to use RDS instead of EC2. It seems like I'm probably missing something big, though, because if I were right, nobody would use RDS. What exactly am I missing, and what are the advantages of RDS over installing your own database on an EC2 instance?