Redis: Amazon EC2 vs Elasticache

Question

I want to host a Redis Server by myself. I compared EC2 to Elasticache. And I would like to know what the disadvantage of EC2 is.

An EC2 tiny instance costs as much as the ELasticache tiny instance but has 400 MB of ram more. Why should use Elasticache and not set up an own Redis Server on the ec2 tiny instance?

Answer 1

I'd opt for Elasticache over EC2 so I will avoid a number of the operational aspects of managing a Redis instance. With Redis on EC2, you're accountable for scaling, updating, monitoring, and maintenance of the host and also the Redis instance. If you're fine dealing with the operational aspects of Redis, then it shouldn't be a problem. A lot of folks overlook the costs of the operational aspects of running a Redis instance. Unless you're well-seasoned with Redis, I'd consider Elasticache. I've been using it and have been pretty happy with it so far.

Now, EC2 is smarter when you want custom configurations of Redis that are not supported by Elasticache.

For more information, check out this official documentation: 

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/WhatIs.html