Comment by zigzag312
Comment by zigzag312 11 hours ago
> A few clicks.
Getting through AWS documentation can be fairly time consuming.
Comment by zigzag312 11 hours ago
> A few clicks.
Getting through AWS documentation can be fairly time consuming.
Figuring out how to do db backups _can_ also be fairly time consuming.
There's a question of whether you want to spend time learning AWS or spend time learning your DB's hand-rolled backup options (on top of the question of whether learning AWS's thing even absolves you of understanding your DB's internals anyways!)
I do think there's value in "just" doing a thing instead of relying on the wrapper. Whether that's easier or not is super context and experience dependent, though.
Hmmm, I think you have to figure out how to do your database backups anyway as trying to get a restorable backup out of RDS to use on another provider seems to be a difficult task.
Backups that are stored with the same provider are good, providing the provider is reliable as a whole.
(Currently going through the disaster recovery exercise of, "What if AWS decided they didn't like us and nuked our account from orbit.")
> 75 clicks
Well 2 commands...
aws rds export-task create \
--source-arn <SnapshotArn> \
--s3-bucket-name <Bucket> \
--iam-role-arn <Role>
Then copy it down aws s3 cp \
<S3 Location> \
<Local Dir> --recursive
The biggest effort would be then running the Apache Parquet to CSV tool on it.> Figuring out how to do db backups _can_ also be fairly time consuming.
apt install automysqlbackup autopostgresqlbackup
Though if you have proper filesystem snapshots then they should always see your database as consistent, right? So you can even skip database tools and just learn to make and download snapshots.
Databases have to be ready for power loss, don't they? They might not be happy about it, but if that corrupts anything then the design has failed.
And again I'll emphasize proper snapshot, cutting off writes at an exact point in time. A normal file copy cannot safely back up an active database.
> repeatable setups which you should be doing from the start
Yes, but not with
> TypeScript and CDK
Unless your business includes managing infrastructure with your product, for whatever reason (like you provision EC2 instances for your customers and that's all you do), there is no reason to shoot yourself in the foot with a fully fledged programming language for something that needs to be as stable as infrastructure. The saying is Infrastructure as Code, not with code. Even assuming you need to learn Terraform from scratch but already know Typescript, you would still save you time compared to learning CDK, figuring out what is possisble with it, and debugging issues down the line.
And making sure you're not making a security configuration mistake that will accidentally leak private data to the open internet because of a detail of AWS you were unaware of.