Amazon RDS Reviews

We use Amazon RDS for storage and scaling the database.

Amazon RDS is a scalable solution.

The solution's connectivity and response logs could be improved.

I have been using Amazon RDS for two years.

I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten for stability.

We never faced any issues with the solution's scalability. Hundreds to millions of users are using the solution, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution's initial setup is complex.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. To deploy Amazon RDS, we need to establish the network within the parent organization account and create the respective VPNs.

The return on investment with Amazon RDS is average.

The solution’s pricing could be cheaper. Maintaining the geo-replication would be more expensive, and you need to set it up accordingly.

It varies on many parameters, but typically, ten people are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

I would recommend Amazon RDS to other users.

Overall, I rate Amazon RDS a five out of ten.

We migrate to Amazon RDS instead of traditional OLTP databases. We experience the ease of management and reduced operational expenses. 

The solution has unique features like backup and recovery, and snapshots. It upgrades automatically. The solution offers easy analytics concerning performance metrics. Its reliability and scalability are very good. The tool's most valuable features are disaster recovery, high availability and scalability. 

Amazon RDS needs to have an overall dashboard where I can view all the tables in the form of pie charts and Gantt charts. The deployment is complex, and we would like to see automated scripts. It needs to incorporate performance insights. 

I have been using the solution since 2016. 

The solution's scalability is good. 

The solution's customer support is satisfactory. 

Amazon RDS' deployment is complex. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

The solution's price is good. 

It would be best if you were careful when picking the RDS instances. Check the network and storage aspects and then decide on the size of the RDS instances. The cost may be high for you if you pick big RDS instances. On the other hand, small RDS instances can bring performance issues. I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

I use the tool to find out latency. 

The tool is very easy to use and configure. 

I would like to see improvements in the tool's automatic restart. 

I have been using the solution for two to three months. 

The tool is stable. 

The tool's support is nice. 

Positive

The tool's initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution to host databases.

The product provides ease of management. We do not have to worry about the database. We just worry about the data. It is really convenient.

The solution’s scalability, usability, and availability are valuable to us. It’s a really good solution.

The product must add more older versions of the database engines.

I have been using the solution for six years. I am using the latest version of the product.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. It is really, really scalable.

The initial deployment was straightforward. We can do it via CLI, or we can do it pretty much like a Windows machine. We can just click on the next button when prompted and click on finish at the end.

We see a 100% return on investment.

The cost varies depending on our use and our database engine. RDS is the database, and AWS manages it for us. It is cheaper to host on a cloud machine ourselves. RDS increases the cost because it manages the database. It’s really, really good. The solution is fairly priced.

I use the solution every day. People who are considering the solution must use it. Forget about the price. It is way better to use RDS than to host a database ourselves. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I use mostly the Postgres incarnation of Amazon RDS. Basically, Amazon RDS is a cheap database that is totally self-contained and self-managed, and that is its good part. There is also the downfall associated with the tool since you don't have you don't have root privileges or super-user privileges on Amazon RDS, so there are certain things you cannot do. Sometimes, when I really needed a database that I could have absolute control over, I used to spin AWS VMs and EC2 machines and load Postgres on that machine so that I could become a super-user. Amazon RDS is very useful for quick and dirty or for very established solutions where you don't have to develop or change a lot. Basically, you can you can load your data into Amazon RDS. In my data analytics space, I see Amazon RDS as an ancillary product to Redshift, which is the real workhorse in terms of big data, data warehousing, and analytics.

I don't manage my database with Amazon RDS. AWS manages Amazon RDS. Sometimes, it is enough, and I don't need to do low-level stuff, and I can use Amazon RDS. Suppose I really need to tweak and do low-level stuff, low-level in the sense of being very close to the system, and I need super-user privileges. In that case, Amazon RDS is out of the picture because AWS doesn't allow you to have super-user privileges in Amazon RDS. The use case for me with Amazon RDS is a cheap and dirty database that I can use when I don't need to do a lot of tweaking. When I need tweaking, I create my own instance of the Postgres, and I can become a super-user and do whatever I like.

As a customer of Amazon RDS, you don't have super-user privileges, and that is the only drawback where improvements are required.

I never tested the scalability of the product. I was scaling it up to two, three, and four gigabytes, and it was fine. I don't know how it fares when we are loading hundreds of gigabytes of terabytes of data. Redshift can manage huge amounts of data, but I don't know about Amazon RDS. I suspect Amazon RDS can handle huge amounts of data because Postgres is very capable of doing so. Amazon RDS in AWS is simply an umbrella. Underneath Amazon RDS, you can choose to implement MySQL or other databases. The implementation I always chose was Postgres.

I have been using Amazon RDS since 2017. My company has a partnership with Amazon.

AWS is a stable environment. Postgres is a very stable database. AWS implementation of Postgres, as far as I know, is very reliable. I never had any issues.

I never tested the scalability of Amazon RDS since it was, for me, a stepping stone toward having real analytics in Redshift. Basically, Amazon RDS was just a collector. I was collecting structured data into Amazon RDS, or if the data was unstructured, like in emails, I was using software to make sense of the email and then store the content of the email relationally in Amazon RDS. Amazon RDS was just a stepping stone, a part of the pipeline, just in order to collect the data momentarily so that the data could eventually be transferred across to Redshift.

The tool's technical support depends on your service level agreements with Amazon. If you are on the cheap side, obviously, they tend not to attend to your issues immediately, and I can understand that. If you pay a premium support fee, I don't know how Amazon treats you since I was never in a position to pay a premium support fee. Overall, I was never disappointed with the tool's support. I didn't face a lot of issues, so I never tested how good the support was because I have 35 years of experience in managing data. I tend to solve my own issues by myself.

The product's initial setup phase is totally easy. You go to a web page, configure your instance with checkboxes and drop-down list boxes, see what you want, see what your needs are, and what you are prepared to pay, compile a form with ten or fifteen fields, click on submit, and Amazon RDS is created for you.

Going from on-premise and hybrid into a complete Amazon RDS solution obviously frees up the need for DBAs. The fact that AWS manages everything for you means you don't need a lot of time and resources to manage the database. So you can cut your yearly salary for the DBAs in your company. You need to consider all the cloud costs as well. I believe it is cheaper to go with Amazon RDS rather than hosting Postgres instances in-house or on-premise. I know that AWS is becoming expensive. I really don't know where the breakeven point is between having your own Postgres instance that you manage yourself outside the cloud. Basically, there are three options. You manage your Postgres on-premise. You use an EC2 VM in AWS, and you install Postgres on it. You have the benefits of AWS scalability and security, but you still have your control, and you become a super-user on the database. The third option is to go with Amazon RDS, after which you lose control of your database, but you don't worry about managing redundancy and creating high-availability solutions because everything is done for you. I believe it is the best feature of RDS, which is total uptime guaranteed by AWS. You don't need to think about how to implement, test, and manage a high availability redundancy kind of solution, as everything is included in the package.

I don't know if the solution is cheap or expensive in comparison with competitors since AWS is the only cloud provider I tried so far. I connected some Azure Blob Storage to the instance running the Redshift instance. AWS is becoming pretty expensive because cheap or absolutely free services have become paid services. Amazon RDS is not an expensive product, but Amazon's ecosystem is becoming increasingly expensive.

In my experience, there is no need to maintain the product. I didn't try the tool's scalability. I was using the TRUNCATE TABLE command in every other ETL. TRUNCATE TABLE means I empty the data every time I load it. It was just a relational storage mechanism, basically, for a few gigabytes of data daily. Each ETL on a daily basis in the pipeline is used to erase what was there for the previous jobs and reload Amazon RDS, and when the loading in Amazon RDS was complete, there was another process in the pipeline that we used to bring the data across to Redshift. I never used it in a very sophisticated manner.

I have not tested the AI capabilities with the product. I know that a lot of the competition, whether inter or intra-cloud, is fierce nowadays, and AI solutions are popping up everywhere. I simply haven't had the chance yet to test the AI capabilities in AWS. It will be my next project.

The trade-off is between control and peace of mind. If you want control, and obviously, you cannot choose RDS. If you want peace of mind and you don't want to think about backing up the database or creating a high availability policy around it, then definitely go for Amazon RDS. If you have some, if you are a startup, for instance, testing new things, I wouldn't go for Amazon RDS simply because you don't have control over the database. If you are an established company and want to move from on-premise to the cloud, you have the once-off migration task from your on-premise into the cloud, and everything has already been concretized. The database that supports the application is already well-established. If you are not introducing new features or experimenting with the product to introduce new features, then Amazon RDS is a good choice.

I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

The solution helps us to move databases from on-premises to other areas. 

Amazon RDS has helped in reducing the median cost for on-prem services.

Amazon RDS is easy to maintain and easy to deploy.

The running cost could be improved.

I have been using the solution for one year.

It is a stable solution. I rate it eight out of ten. 

The solution's scalability depends on the application. There are no fixed users. I plan to increase the usage of the solution. 

Previously, I used Oracle SQL but switched to Amazon RDS because it's easy to manage and easy to set.

The initial setup is easy. For the deployment, one has to prepare the pipeline and set up the security configuration. The complete deployment takes a couple of days. Three software engineers are required in the deployment process. I rate the setup an eight out of ten.

The solution is expensive.

I would advise others to use the solution as it is easy to deploy, but they will need to take care of the running cost. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We use it in our organization since it is a managed database service. So we can manage our database within UAM.

My company decided to use the solution since it is a managed database service that provides control along with a UI for our databases.

The performance insight is a valuable feature of the solution since it gives us information on how much data has been and which queries have been taking a long time. Also, it shows the percentage of bin select queries while providing information on how insert queries work, along with the time required for operation and insertion while indicating the performance in sales.

There are a few aspects of database management that have room for improvement. There are a few parameters in the solution that are a bit unclear at our end as it's not understandable. So, for queries, they show them as other stuff which is not clearly mentioned. For the legends which they are giving, there should be some other help that could help us with the legends on the graphs.

I have been using Amazon RDS for three years. Since it's an AWS service, no one looks after the version. I am a customer of the solution.

It's a stable product.

Amazon RDS has been used for major applications, and multiple people work on the applications. So, around 600 people are using RDS to work on applications.

There is no specific technical support for the solution. I rate the support a six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy.

Everyone should definitely use RDS because it's the next revolutionary solution in the market. A managed database is something that is required.

Amazon RDS is quite a well-managed and stable service, but there are a few parameters that are still unclear from their end.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is relational data services.

The Amazon RDS features I found most valuable are snapshots and automatic backups.

In the next release, it would be great to see RDS provide connection pooling out of the box.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. It has never crashed on us.

My impression is that Amazon RDS is quite a scalable solution. If there are any issues, it's usually on the application side of things.

My impression is that deployment is quite straightforward. It took just one person in our company to deploy it.

Overall, I would rate this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.