AWS Database Migration Service Reviews

What I find most valuable in AWS Database Migration Service are these features: the full load and continuous data replication to heterogeneous endpoints.

There's a lot of room for improvement in AWS Database Migration Service, e.g. more endpoints to be supported, more control and transparency on the product and on how we get things done, and better operational support.

I've been working with AWS Database Migration Service for two years.

The solution is stable, but we have migrated a lot of those data sets to Qlik Attunity. I also worked for Qlik Attunity for consulting and database DMS.

AWS Database Migration Service is scalable, but Qlik Attunity is more scalable.

The technical support for AWS Database Migration Service is bad. They are still figuring out how to support their product. I've reached out to some AWS resources, but they don't understand the support.

The initial setup for the solution was moderate. It had some learning curve, but it was moderate. It was okay, and it was not difficult to learn.

How reasonable the pricing for AWS Database Migration Service would be, depends on where we are getting this data migrated from. Pricing for the solution is reasonable, but it could still be reduced.

I evaluated Qlik Attunity.

I use a lot of Qlik Attunity and AWS Database Migration Service.

I'm more of a consultant/engineer, so I use Database Migration Services to move data across different instances from on-premises to AWS, etc.

My advice to people who want to implement the solution is that there are alternate products. AWS Database Migration Service is still a good start, but an alternate product such as Qlik Attunity does a very good job, e.g. Attunity gives you more control.

I'm giving AWS Database Migration Service a six out of ten rating.

We looked for Oracle to Aurora conversion migrations. This has two parts, one is called the static table schema migrations, which is a one-time snapshot that we just stamp and load. The other is the CDC replications, or real-time streaming replications, heterogeneously from Oracle to Aurora. 

The solution is simple, which is key. 

AWS Database Migration Service is a huge product, and it takes a great amount of effort to reverse engineer what they do on the backend. It would be better if they did more troubleshooting at the moment. Currently, if something goes wrong, you get a message that says one thing that has nothing to do with the RCA, and it could be misleading. You aren't even sure which part was broken.

There is no connectivity to the source database or the target database. Any of those channels could break, and it becomes very hard to troubleshoot. 

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service since 2016.

The solution is stable. Typically, once the solution is up and running, and you don't change your application code, it will keep working. Even if it does break down, it will automatically recover itself and resumes from where it stopped.

The scalability of AWS Database Migration Service depends on how you define the scale. There are two considerations, one is the initial part of ETL replication. The other is the CDC part, which is after the full image replication is done. 

On the full ETL, you can scale. Meaning, even within the table you can do a parallel on the table level, or within the table level. After, you do a soft positioning for each range you want. A DMS would assign a process link up to that range, this speeds up the skip performance for the ETL.

As for the CDC, there are limitations. CDC is typically a single channel or single thread. That is because CDC is time-based and a binary transactional log. To do a parallel, you would have to do a lot of work. In our scenario, I could not use DMS. I had to use the in-house developer to do a catalog version of CDC.

My experience with Amazon's technical support depends on who I get for support. If I'm lucky to get someone with experience, the issue will be resolved right away. If I get an amateur, they will avoid answering any questions and send me tons of documents. 

Most of my questions are eventually fixed or solved. I would rate service and support a seven out of ten overall.

Neutral

In a typical deployment scenario, I set up the lead-only account on the source database. I make sure that I will not write anything to the source database to compromise the integrity of my source database. I have to write to the target database. Then the solution is ready for use.

Deployment of AWS Database Migration Service requires a POC first, then you make sure that everything is working and run it for about three weeks in an on-premise environment. Then you deploy, either manually or through the telephone, to an AWS production environment.

AWS Database Migration Service is very inexpensive. The cost is considerably lower than Agility or Oracle Golden Gate. We do not have a license for the solution. We are charged based on our usage.

We evaluated Oracle Golden Gate. They offer similar features to AWS Database Migration, but they lacked simplicity. With Golden Gate, you have to set up the entire enterprise software stack which requires so many steps.

We also looked into Aurora for replication, version eight. This product offers parallel replications of CDC, which is very useful. 

AWS Database Migration Service is most useful for a company that is trying to do partial applications for a short amount of time until the entire application is cut over from one place to another.

If you are considering AWS Database Migration as a solution for your organization, I recommend you pay attention to your CDC throughput, it is a single showstopper if you misuse it. I try to use it for our current application's traffic, which is about 30 megabytes per second. DMS would not be able to handle that in-house, it would just keep lagging.

Overall, I would rate AWS Database Migration Service a nine out of ten. It is a very useful product.

We're currently moving our whole database from AWS to Oracle. We want to avoid interrupting production systems, so we're using DMS to continuously replicate data from the AWS RDS database to the Oracle database in OCI. Once we're sure all data is consistent, we'll switch over to Oracle and shut down the AWS database.

This should minimize downtime to about 15 minutes, and all our services in AWS then point to the Oracle database.

For our simple requirement of migration, DMS is just a typical AWS RDS with an IPSec tunnel to Oracle. The most valuable features for us are the networking capabilities like VPCs and VPNs.

Currently, we're happy with DMS because it's simple and meets our needs. We're still syncing the data, but once that's done, we'll cut off the AWS database. Compared to Oracle GoldenGate, DMS is definitely easier to use. We haven't encountered any major difficulties.

The cost is a concern. We use DMS because of its simplicity, but the price could definitely be more competitive.

So, in my opinion, some potential areas for improvement are price and possibly supporting Oracle Autonomous Database (ADB) on AWS, as it's a powerful option.

Oracle ADB on AWS would significantly reduce our migration workload. Price and lack of ADB support are the main downsides of DMS for us right now. In fact, about 60% of our monthly AWS costs go towards database services.

We've been using DMS for a while to replicate databases between AWS and Oracle, mainly for backups and test environments.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It took us a while to get it running smoothly. It wasn't entirely straightforward. But once it was set up, it was stable. AWS support was helpful during the initial setup.

We haven't encountered any scalability issues so far. We might need to increase the database size later, but it's not a problem. So, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We actually bumped up our support level for extra coverage, and they've been very helpful. We also have AWS expertise on our team, so there haven't been many difficulties. Overall, the support is good.

The biggest challenge we faced was setting up the IPSec tunnel between the two private networks. It took a while to figure out why they weren't communicating even though the tunnel was up. Luckily, our AWS networking experts managed to fix the routing issue.

Neutral

Currently, we're moving from AWS to Oracle. We're migrating our database, and that's already been taken care of. The issue with AWS has been addressed, and we no longer have any problems with it.

We're new to DMS. We decided to use it about three months ago. That's why we compared DMS with GoldenGate to choose the best option for migrating our database. 

The setup process was simple enough for us because our database is plain and doesn't have many blocks. It's just a typical cloud-based product, like most AWS services.

We use the enterprise and the AWS license, which is a bit expensive. We're consolidating our databases from AWS to Oracle, which we find more cost-effective. So, we're using an autonomous database in Oracle, a feature not offered by AWS.

We've been using AWS for a long time, including for non-Oracle services, and overall, we're very happy. It's much better than GoldenGate, which was a headache for us. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

All of our infrastructure is on Amazon, so we used AWS Database Migration Service to perform a database migration from one relational database to another within the AWS cloud. The migration was from an Oracle database to PostgreSQL database, and AWS DMS helped us transfer all the tables and other objects from the one database to the other automatically.

If your infrastructure is already on Amazon, it simply makes the most sense to use a tool officially provided by them as an additional service, rather than having to rely on a third-party solution.

On the other hand, if you have a custom infrastructure and you want to migrate to Amazon, it also makes thing much easier to integrate. The way it works is brilliant, and it's based on similar logic to Oracle's GoldenGate migration tool in that you can migrate everything from data tables to schemas from one database to another. So in most situations where you would need to migrate to Amazon, the best way is by using AWS DMS.

One area that AWS DMS can improve on is its conversion of data types. For example, in Oracle, you have a data type called RAW, but in PostgreSQL there is no such thing. Thus, AWS DMS doesn't know what type I want to use when migrating from Oracle to PostgreSQL, and when performing the migration, AWS DMS changed the RAW data type to the byte data type, which isn't what I wanted.

For example, if I wanted to manually transfer the RAW data type in the Oracle database to something else like VARCHAR in the PostgreSQL database, AWS DMS doesn't seem to have this functionality. It would be great if I could change the data type conversions manually instead of automatically.

Another area that has proven difficult for me is the use of AWS Schema Conversion Tool, which is a free, cross-platform app that they offer as part of AWS DMS. I was under the impression that I would first have to use this tool to convert from one database to another, and then use AWS DMS, but when I used it, some of the tasks didn't work correctly. To my surprise, when I skipped using the Schema Conversion Tool and went ahead with the migration with AWS DMS, it automatically transferred everything and it was all correct. So I am not sure what the point of the Schema Conversion Tool is, because the default functionality of AWS DMS seemed to transfer and convert the databases fine without it.

There is also room for improvement from a support perspective. It is sometimes necessary to contact their support team when there is something you don't understand, and when I wrote a support ticket they simply weren't able to help. Yet, when our company contacted the manager of our reseller, they were able to create a meeting room with an Amazon specialist for DMS, and with one call, all our questions were answered. I think their email support team could be much better when compared with their personal support team. 

I have used the solution only once, during a migration which took place over two or three months. 

I only used AWS DMS over the course of about three months, but I could tell that it's not always stable. I think it's fine if you only need to use it for a short time with a one-time migration, but if you intend to use it all the time in, for instance, a staging environment, every day of the month, I wouldn't say that's a good idea. I would only use it for quick migrations.

I have certainly needed the support, especially when I don't understand why something doesn't work. This is often the case when dealing with different types of databases, such as Oracle and PostgreSQL. We also use a lot of other databases, so for us, contacting support is almost inevitable.

Once, when I wrote a support ticket but I didn't get the help I needed, our company wrote to the manager of our reseller who arranged for a meeting with Amazon's personal support. We spoke with an AWS DMS specialist in this meeting and showed him our problem, and with this one call, all our questions were answered.

It's easy to set up when you use Amazon's official documentation, and the first steps are simple. Amazon also has a few practice videos so you can see how it is done.

However, it's not always easy to adapt the documentation according to our own particular applications and databases. For example, if you've never used it before, you will likely need to set aside a minimum of 40 hours for reading and testing.

I implemented it by myself.

The pricing is per hour, though I do not have the exact figures.

If you have specific questions about the service, a personal support team from Amazon is available, but this will bring in additional costs.

Our infrastructure is fully on Amazon, so for us AWS DMS was an obvious choice to perform our migration as it is an additional service that Amazon provides. To those who are thinking of using the same, I would say go ahead and try it. If you come across any problems or have questions, you will most likely need to contact Amazon support, which can give good service, but it's not ideal. The paid support, however, worked well for us.

I would rate AWS Database Migration Service a seven out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution to migrate databases. 

We have an Oracle database on-premise, and then we have a plan to install the new system with a database for another application service. Therefore, we need to duplicate, to copy, our Oracle database to the Postgres database on AWS. 

The solution makes it very simple to migrate the database. 

The solution's price is cheaper than Oracle GoldenGate or other solutions. 

We can get a lot of support services from AWS via the MSP. 

The solution is stable and reliable.

It's scalable. 

This solution is compatible with only AWS. I cannot use this solution with AWS and other cloud services like Azure or Google Cloud.

We've been using the solution for one month. 

The solution is stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

We have five customers that use the AWS Service. I don't know how many exactly use it. We have just five AWS customers in our company.

I can expand the hardware specification from one virtual machine to three or four. I can expand the hardware cloud resource without rebooting or stopping the service. This solution is scalable.

The support on offer is pretty great. 

We have only one way to get support from AWS. We need access to our support partner. We need the budget to get technical support from AWS as we need a contract with an AWS MSP partner.

Our engineer did recommend this solution first for migrating the database. We copy our Oracle database to AWS first. And then, we move our Oracle database and Postgres on AWS. I have experience with Oracle GoldenGate.

This solution is a PaaS solution. We do not need to handle an installation for this solution, as it's already installed on AWS.

We are a user of the product.

I recommend the solution. I'm pretty happy with the capabilities. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to enable us to carry out heavy, data-level migrations across multiple ETL tools.

We particularly like that this solution has the facility to integrate with all ETL tools.

We also like that this solution provides us with high speed velocity, performance, scalability, and throughput for our data migration tasks.

We would like to see some improvement in the performance of large scale procedures, such as when we migrate from Oracle to csSQL.

We have been working with this solution for over five years.

We would rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

We have taken that as a Platform as a Service. So, how we are running here, we just migrated whatever database instance in the rack was there to AWS. It was an "as-it-is" migration. 

For data, we tried to use SSIS to transfer the data from the patch to AWS.

The main thing why people are going behind AWS is the cost. 

For example, on the current project, I am working with an insurance company. So the basic thing is they want to accomplish whatever add-on services AWS provides, but they don't want to go all in a single step. Plus, they want to see what the platform is. Then they look step by step. So, it is an incremental adoption kind of thing.

So, we are helping and enhancing our knowledge of that.  

As a solution, the better thing is if more platforms come with direct compatibility, like connecting to different data sources. 

The basic problem I faced the most was while transferring and reading data from Excel. So, one time, I found that all the components I had declared in my scripts were able to take it. 

And after some patching happens, it is not able to support that. Again, we need to update the version of Excel. So, it's not like a plug-in type place where you have done the solution and are confident that it will work. So, this is an area of improvement. 

If we look at Microsoft products, most things look or are plug-and-play. For example, if you are using storage as a service, we need to go for CLI commands. So, those types of stuff that's not as easy as using a Microsoft product, like DDoS, that level of easiness is not there.

In the project I am in, we migrated from SQL Server from RAS to AWS recently.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. We had some issues with stability.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is able to scale up and fulfill requirements. 

The only thing weakness is compatibility. Like, once you program and forget it, it's not that type of thing. 

I faced some problems while patching; new things come up, and sometimes old things don't support, causing a bit of a headache for me. 

We have a big-sized company with various clients. 

Experience with customers and support was good. I got a good response. It was not a delayed response, or it was not that I had to go back to the multiple times for the issue. It was not there. 

Overall, I had a good experience with the support.

The initial setup is simple. Not that much complex.

The pricing is neither high nor low. It is value for money. Moreover, the facilities or the add-ons they give are good.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We've used the product for database migration from on-prem to AWS for an Oracle database.

The ease of use is great.

It is easy to set up initially.

It's scalable.

The solution has been quite stable. 

We had challenges working with the database as it was a different kind of exit. It has blobs and other types of storage which caused issues.

If they had some sort of functionality where, at a specific point in time, if I want to start a new job, it should automatically pick up from where it has been left rather than having people worry about the exact job number and the timing. If something could be automated, that will be really helpful.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it at least over the past year.

It's a stable solution. That said, every technology or solution in the industry has its own challenges. It's a good solution overall as I've used it for multiple databases. In my past experience, it has worked, and it has done wonders.

It is scalable. For the instances it supports, it is scalable on runtime. It'll just require downtime and can be scaled up or down accordingly.

While we don't have any active projects right now, typically, we have six or seven people on the product.

I've had to reach out to support as there were challenges with the database data types. We had to reach out to technical support multiple times to get that sorted. In general, we've found them to be helpful and responsive. 

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not complex. 

For us, since we have many factors involved, we took at least two to three days to configure and validate things and then run the assessment and then get to the job. The configuration does not take much. The reason we had a longer time was due to the fact that it was a huge schema, around 800 GB. Therefore, it took that much time for us to evaluate and go through a preassessment. After configuring, there were challenges we had to fix. Then, after fixing them, we came back to the migration. It's a whole process. That said, the configuration altogether itself was not as much time. It was smooth.

While it is a paid service, I don't have many details about licensing or costs. It's not an aspect of the product I manage. That said, I would say it is worth the investment. 

We are AWS partners.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

Whether it's the right product for everybody varies from situation to situation. There is not a generic thing you can say about the service or the situation. Everyone's experience will vary depending on their requirements. That said, in general, I would recommend it to others. 

Overall, I'd rate the product seven out of ten. There were challenges. And if the preassessment is there, we should have been warned in the preassessment about the challenges. If we fixed the issues in preassessment, we wouldn't have been waiting for hours and days for a job to complete. Considering it's a huge database, it's really difficult to wait on the whole thing over very small issues.