I've been looking into RDS for my web app that I'm planning to launch, and I noticed that the UI suggests a standard production Postgres DB will cost around $1627/month. However, I feel like that's pretty excessive, especially since I was budgeting about $100/month at most. Is this figure accurate, or can I go for a smaller, more cost-effective option?
4 Answers
If your app is still in its early stages and you aren't sure about user demand, consider starting smaller without the HA configuration. You can always scale up later if it turns out you need more resources. Just keep an eye on your app's growth and adjust accordingly.
AWS tends to market the 'production' RDS as needing a high-availability (HA) setup, but in reality, that's not always necessary. It's frustrating because it feels like a scare tactic. Check out their 'dev' templates; they show non-HA options that can work just fine for many applications. Use your own judgment based on what your app needs.
In the AWS console, the standard production instance they list is usually a db.m7g.large at around $248.20/month. Just remember that 'production' can mean different things for different users; you can probably choose a smaller DB to match your actual workload. Load test with your expected traffic to see what you can actually handle without overpaying.
Totally agree! It's important to run those tests to ensure you're not stuck paying for more than you need.
Have you been tracking any database metrics during your testing phase? Also, think about how many users you expect to have. Utilizing a caching mechanism could also help improve performance without needing a huge database right off the bat.
Exactly! Caching can really ease the load on your database, especially during spikes in traffic.
Exactly! It's like they want you to think you need these expensive setups when you really don't in many cases.