Amazon RDS Reviews

We use it for data warehousing and transforming data.

One of the most valuable features is that it is serverless, so we don't have to worry about scaling.

We don't have control over tweaking the database parameters, so we switched to Aurora.

In the next release, it would be great to have access to core parameters to improve or tweak the performance.

I have been using it for five years. 

I would give it a nine because it's a reliable and cost-effective solution.

We have cloud infra and development teams and my job with this solution is to move them to a cloud architecture, so I create a migration plan for Database from on-premises to AWS Cloud , co-ordinate with teams to host the planned RDS solutions and provide support for post cloud hosting challenges for better customer experience. 

Few minutes to launch RDS, DR, HA and monitoring configurations which reduced the administrative task and by the approach of pay for what we use reduced the cost. Performance is good when both Web application and DB are in same cloud. Need to be have In depth understanding of cost, else we are in position to pay more, which makes us to think our own DB is better when cost is very huge amount.  

The most valuable feature is that it is a fully managed database, where they handle most of the administrative tasks and leaves the users more time to concentrate on business.

The fact that it is fully managed has some disadvantages, as well. I have worked on SQL Server, Oracle, and other RDBMS systems for more than 20 years. In many of these cases, I have been an administrator and required administrative privileges to perform many of the tasks that I did. As I now work on a fully managed and maintained database, it is taking me longer to figure out how to perform these same operations that I was used to doing on-premises. Essentially, having a great deal of experience as an RDBMS administrator has made it harder for me to move forward when working on a database that is fully managed. It would be helpful if they made it easier to migrate from an existing on-premises solution to the cloud-based service.

Technical support could use some improvement.

I have been using Amazon RDS for five years.

The stability of this solution is good. We did have a couple of problems last year when the database was absconded, but luckily we had snapshots available. They take six backups daily and we were able to easily restore. We did not suffer any data loss.

I make use of this solution on a daily basis, especially over the past few years. We are migrating and I do work on the on-premises data centers, which is our core area. But, from a cost perspective, we are working towards hosting our business entirely in AWS.

The scalability of Amazon RDS is very good.

We have between 5,000 and 6,000 users.

We have contacted technical support over several issues and use cases. We build a use case and they suggest solutions. I do like them, but each use case is different and I have seen a lot of room for them to improve over time.

We initially deployed Amazon RDS on-premises, although we are now migrating to cloud-based deployment. Spinning up a task is very easy and there is no maintenance. There are no administrative tasks involved for us because it is entirely taken care of. This includes monitoring and backup, as well.

The length of time for deployment depends on the size of the database. If they say it is one gigabyte then it will take a few minutes.

We have technical people who are certified and handle the deployment in-house.

Good amount of cost reduction in cloud but we need to have well defined monitoring rules to save cost even after hosted in cloud. You can scale-up and scale-down with minimal duration compare to on-prem DB Servers. Which add more cost benefits. 

We can BYOL (Bring Your Own License), if you already purchased for Microsoft SQL Server or for Oracle and use that during RDS launch. 

If you need to reduce licensing cost in database , we can migrate to 3 open source databases in AWS RDS : MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MariaDB.

Amazon Aurora RDS , which is compatible to MySQL Engine and PostgreSQL Engine can be used to get most benefit of RDS managed service with performance and cost since it is AWS native RDS.

We have reached the stage where all of our critical applications are hosted on-premises, and the rest is hosted with a public cloud provider. We found that at one stage, it was more advantageous to store some of our core data in our own data centers and have the rest managed.

My advice for people who are implementing this solution is to keep in mind that they need to redefine their product. It is not just a copy of an on-premises solution. Rather, it is designed with cloud architecture in mind. We use the term Cloud Adaptiveness. This means that before moving, they need to make sure that the architect of that application, the business owner, and the database administrator all realize that they are going to be migrating to the cloud. They will need to make some modifications before it happens. Otherwise, if they try to do it post-migration, it will be more difficult.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This product is used primarily for storing data. The process is you have to reserve RDS space and then you can install any database scheme you want, for example, MariaDB, SQL or Aurora. We typically use Aurora DB. 

The solution has proven to be quite stable so far.

The product is very, very easy to use.

The only thing that I can say is, you have to be really careful about the Cloud provision plannings - meaning that you should calculate the cost carefully due to the fact that the bill is increased sharply if you increase the limit. You have to provision what you need per month.

The solution charges for technical support, which is something they should change, at least for those organizations on tier one.

We've only been using this solution for six months. It's been less than a year. We haven't been using it for too long just yet.

We've found this solution to be very stable. It's reliable. We don't really deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. So far, it's been very good.

The solution is fully scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

Everyone in our organization uses the product. It's pretty widespread. The idea is you save your data on Cloud and make it available to everybody, add it to your website.

We plan to continue to use this service, at least over the next year or so.

Technical support is not ideal. It's one of Amazon's pain points.

Amazon offers a free service tier, a so-called free tier for start-ups. We are a start-up. By the time that you sign up with Amazon, you're connected to the free tier, however, for some reason, you don't have access to the support.

You can only get access from the sales support. That means if you want to buy something or renew your subscription or upgrade, all these services are easily available. Yet, if you would like to get some technical support, you have to pay for it. You have to pay for an additional subscription. It's really too bad.

Everybody using cloud computing needs technical support at some point, so this jeopardizes the original promise of the free tier. If you have to pay for any given question to the technical department, it is not free anymore. That's really a drawback in terms of Amazon's service. 

There are alternatives to RDS, and therefore you can use another type of cloud computing if you like. However, I haven't used any.

While, with all services of Amazon, there is a starter option that is given for free, this starter offer is not enough for the development or the deployment of products. Each time you pass these limits, you have to pay and it's completely unpredictable.

The pricing can get very expensive. You pay a standard price, which is low, for a fixed reservation. However, if you exceed your limit, instantly, then the bill is increased tremendously. That's a drawback for the system. You have to provision very carefully and to make sure that you do not exceed the limit.

That said, after careful provisioning, it is a very cheap option. If you are successful at cloud provisioning, you won't need to pay much.

You do have to pay extra for technical support, even if you are on the free service tier.

Despite the issues around pricing and technical support, RDS is a good choice for organizations due to the fact that it's very easy to use. I'd recommend it to others due to this ease of use and general stability.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If they had a free technical support tier I might rate it higher.

RDS provides deployment agility and an on-demand database-as-a-service for MySQL, Oracle, and SQL servers.

With RDS, everything is turnkey and always available. For example, due to the inherent multi-availability zone feature of AWS, there is no downtime at all and you can count on AWS RDS to always be available.

For many of the Pythian customers, one salient benefit, among other benefits, is the option of spinning up a new instance whenever it is needed. Now it can be done with a few clicks, without much ado.

RDS doesn't have shell access. This could be beneficial, especially for Oracle databases.

One benefit of having shell access with RDS is that DBAs or developers could keep their own existing scripts. Especially in the case of non-enterprise versions, there is always a need to dig into performance issues and their troubleshooting. So shell access could be very handy in that case and in some other cases.

I have been using AWS RDS for the last two years.

We have not really had stability issues.

The technical support is good and prompt.

For many clients of Pythian, it’s an amalgamation of on-premises and cloud. Pythian enables its customers to reap the benefits of both worlds.

With the expertise and experience of Pythian, the initial setup was a breeze.

Read the fine print carefully and always engage experts to carry out migration.

We did not evaluate any alternatives.

Having your database on RDS doesn't mean that you don't need a DBA anymore. Mission critical and important databases must be handled by a DBA, even if the database resides on the cloud, like RDS.

Amazon RDS is primarily for web applications.

The solution is good for on-premise deployments.

The solution could improve by adding a sandbox environment and more security.

I have been using Amazon RDS for approximately one year.

I rate the stability of Amazon RDS a five out of ten.

I plan to increase the usage of this solution.

I rate the scalability of Amazon RDS a five out of ten.

I rate the stability of Amazon RDS a nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup of Amazon RDS was complex.

I have received a return on investment using the solution.

The price of Amazon RDS is reasonable.

I rate Amazon RDS a ten out of ten.

We are using AWS RDS to have a database that we're not using at the moment. I'm not making any changes to the parameter of the database or the configuration of the database on AWS. I just have to open a new port on the map of the network to have a connection to the prepaid network.

The initial setup is straightforward, and technical support is good.

The price could be better. We have better options like Microsoft Azure to use in the cloud. I also don't think it's very scalable. 

I've been using Amazon RDS for almost five months.

I don't think it's very scalable. In comparison, Microsoft Azure has many options. In RDS, I couldn't even find many options to increase or to perform a scale up or scale down.

Technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward because our data isn't difficult to manage. But there are a few things that take some time or become hard to manage because we have many security and network configurations. I need to rush through the connection between my machine and the cloud to bypass our prepaid network, and that makes things a little bit harder. But it's not too complicated.

At the time, we needed to deploy by ourselves, manually. I think it took just one or two of us to implement and maintain this solution.

The price could be better.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon RDS a seven.

• Easy creation of new databases
• Maintenance is fully automatic (backups, monitoring, and patches)

We are using it as shared QA environment.

Migration to RDS using the default tools is very complicated.

I have used this product for one year.

We have not had stability problems. It is much more stable than a standard datacenter.

This had the same scalability issues as Oracle databases on premise.

We have never needed technical support.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup was very simple.

I am using BYOL.

We evaluated Oracle database on-premises on Amazon EC2 and on Oracle Cloud.

It requires time to adapt to the idea that you do not have any access to the O/S.

We deployed RDS in our environment, and our use case is so simple. We don't have large-scale use, but we will start using RDS with more users. For now, we deployed it, and we use RDS with only a few users.

For me, RDS is a great solution. I like that Amazon RDS is a very simple solution to implement and to start using.

It would be better if it integrated seamlessly with Microsoft products. Our clients use the Microsoft Tally application server. We already tried to create a reputation, for example, an on-premises environment from our client to Amazon RDS using the Microsoft Tally server. But we couldn't do that because we didn't have a strong user in RDS. We couldn't create a reputation from an on-premises environment from the Microsoft Tally server to RDS. I think that it would be a good implementation, and it would help us with this case.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon RDS a ten.