1 Answer
- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
1
Many possibilities, for example this one:
The data collection may be done using AWS Lambda functions indeed (perhaps using step functions for orchestration), and AWS Glue for transformation. Keep in mind the limitations of the AWS Lambda though (like 15 minutes maximum run time).
The resulting data doesn't absolutely have to be in a database - what's frequently done is storing in S3 instead as structured data, for example as Parquet files (Glue can also be used to do that by the way). This will be cheaper than a database and very durable. Once on S3, the data can be queried using Athena or other mechanisms, both AWS (Quicksight) or external.
Regards
answered 6 months ago
Relevant content
- Accepted Answerasked a year ago
- Accepted Answerasked 4 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 5 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
Thanks! I will test this out on a smaller scale. Although some of the scripts do need more than 15 mins of execution time, but it wouldn't be roadblock atleast in the initial stages.
@AWS-ADolganov "I was able to test syncing between AWS S3 and Dropbox, and it worked fine. However, I'm wondering if AWS is the best approach going forward.
Currently, all of our local files are synced with Dropbox, and developers manually run scripts to keep things updated. Moving to AWS would automate this process, but we would still need to sync S3 with Dropbox and then Dropbox with the local system for shared access.
Are there other alternatives to AWS that would allow us to automate the synchronization of local files without requiring physical presence? Specifically, I'm looking for a solution where the scripts can run automatically and keep the data up-to-date, even if all developers are on vacation."
Are there any other alternatives to AWS?