GCP hosts our entire infrastructure, both internally used systems, and externally-facing ones. Back to back this means that Google Cloud SQL is used for all SQL related requirements by our systems.
GCP hosts our entire infrastructure, both internally used systems, and externally-facing ones. Back to back this means that Google Cloud SQL is used for all SQL related requirements by our systems.
The main benefit to our organization is the fact that we no longer need DB admins that take care of the physical servers, backups etc... All this is managed by GCP.
In terms of most valuable features - its ease of management and the ability to oversee the statistics of your SQL, and obviously its availability all the time.
In my humble opinion, nothing can be improved. It's a good solution as it is.
What could be refined however is the ability to have more than just one secondary/replication site. At the moment you can have a primary DB and a replica one, but having the option to add a third or fourth replication site would be fantastic.
We've been using it for around 2 years.
Google Cloud SQL is very stable.
It is highly scalable. You can quickly add the disc space and you can quickly add different discs and nodes.
Everyone in our company is using Google. Emails are Google. Everyone's using Google. All infrastructure for our operation is on Google. The more business we have the higher the usage.
Google's technical support is good, but they tend to never reopen a case and to send us snippets from the publicly available documentation. It's not as helpful as you would expect, not just for Google Cloud SQL but for all of Google Cloud products.
The initial setup was quite simple. It took maybe 10, 20 minutes
On a scale of 10, I'd give it a 10.
I would recommend everyone to check all of Google's Cloud portfolio and give it a shot.