We have a large legacy SQL Server environment that we need to move to the cloud. I'm trying to decide if we should use AWS RDS for SQL Server or Google Cloud SQL. Given the current state of <Cloud (AWS/Azure/GCP) Computing>, which platform provides better high-availability features and easier migration tools for .NET applications? We're worried about licensing costs and the complexity of the cutover process.
3 answers
For SQL Server specifically, AWS has a very long history and a more mature RDS offering. Their Database Migration Service (DMS) and Schema Conversion Tool (SCT) are excellent for minimizing downtime during the cutover. AWS also offers 'License Included' models which can simplify things if you don't have existing Software Assurance. While Google Cloud SQL has made great strides, AWS’s integration with Active Directory and its Multi-AZ deployments for SQL Server feel more robust for enterprise-grade .NET workloads that require strict sub-second failover capabilities.
Cynthia, what about the cost? I’ve heard that Google Cloud can be significantly cheaper for SQL Server due to their sustained-use discounts.
If you are a heavy .NET shop, Azure SQL is usually the path of least resistance, but between AWS and GCP, AWS feels like the safer enterprise bet.
I agree, Karen. The ecosystem of support and the sheer number of documented case studies for SQL Server on AWS make it a lot easier to troubleshoot when things go wrong during migration.
Larry, the discounts are real, but you have to factor in the total cost of ownership. AWS's performance-optimized instances can sometimes mean you need fewer vCPUs for the same workload. Also, if you use Babelfish for Aurora PostgreSQL, you might even be able to migrate away from SQL Server entirely while keeping your app code mostly the same, which is a huge long-term saving.