Amazon RDS Reviews

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

It is used for multiple needs. We have a transaction system with multiple databases, such as SQL Server and MySQL.

It is easy to use, flexible, and powerful.

When you are using it for the first time, it is a little bit hard to configure. The first-time configuration is not very easy. It should be easier to configure.

Its installation should also be simpler. Currently, its installation is very complex.

With SQL Server, we have access to the SQL Server analysis services and reporting services, but such services are not available with Amazon RDS.

I have been using this solution for a couple of months.

It is stable.

We have around ten users of this solution. We plan to keep using this solution.

I have not interacted with them.

Its installation is very complex. It takes one whole day.

I did it with the help of someone else. We have three or four people for deployment and maintenance.

It is less expensive than SQL Server. We pay based on the usage on a monthly basis.

I would rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten.