AWS Database Migration Service Reviews

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. 

We were using the solution for the migration and replication of data.

AWS Database Migration Service is good for smaller workloads and provides compatibility.

The solution’s scalability and performance could be improved.

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service since it came up.

I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Neutral

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s pricing is reasonable.

AWS Database Migration Service is a cloud-based solution.

Overall, I rate AWS Database Migration Service a six or seven 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.

The tool is offered as part of AWS stacks. We use it for data migrations from on-premise to AWS stack via PostgreSQL and MySQL. We also use it for the infrastructure configuration to simplify the setup because we are going on RDS. The AWS platform will manage everything. We use it for the simplification of migration. We do not do a lot of study on how exactly to map the database provisioning.

The database migration services allow us to do real-time synchronization of on-premise and database to plan out our releases. We do prod testing to keep the prod data in sync, at the same time, not expose it much. The automation of this synchronization helps us ensure the data is consistent in both AWS and on-prem. Then we can switch over wherever you need it. Parallely, we can do production performance testing and user experience testing without actually writing a lot of code. It comes out of the box. It is one feature that we like a lot.

The other feature I like is schema migration. When we want to upgrade it to MySQL, we can easily upgrade it. It is another stack. We haven’t used database migration. We can use it if we want to move from Oracle to PostgreSQL. It also comes as an out-of-the-box solution. I think these three things are very good. However, we have not used database migration yet because we do not plan to install software yet. The solution has a good feature stack.

The product's performance could be a little bit better. It is good in terms of the data, but it is difficult for the first time. After that, the synchronization is fine. We saw a few failures because of the bandwidth the first time the data got loaded. The performance could be better, but it's only for the first time. We haven't seen any performance-related issues post the initial setup.

I am using the solution right now.

There's no issue with stability. The solution is quite stable. It has to be stable. The only reason we are moving to AWS is to be scalable and perform well.

On-premises scalability is the reason why we are moving into AWS. The product's purpose is to introduce scalability. We would not have picked it up if it was not a ten out of ten. It is expected to be scalable because of how the nodes are getting set up in AWS. We have a medium to large user group. It's for a finance-related project. So there are quite a bit of end users, but not very high. It is targeted at brokers and stock traders.

The technical support is really good. We have partnered with Amazon, and we are part of Amazon's consultation team. There's a service engineer and an overall account manager who take care of the issues. For any automation issues, we can go through them to coordinate. They provide excellent support.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy. The product has one of the easiest installation setups.

My team, who has expertise in Data Migration Services, did the implementation in a few hours. We have five DevOps team members, two architects, one for data and one for infra and application, and managers. The development team varies. It depends on the system. The rest is the core team. Below the core team, we usually have pilot teams and project teams. We might have a specific development team if a feature enhancement needs to happen, but it is very rare. The core team comprises five DevOps, two architects, and one manager. The maintenance team takes over the maintenance of the on-premise system.

I recommend using the solution if the end goal is AWS. It should not be used for GCPRs and on-premise migration. A lot of the features are applied while the migration tool is in place. The migration tools, like data and schema migration tools, make more sense if the target infrastructure is AWS. You could not use it as a separate tool. If someone is looking at an AWS infrastructure, they have to use the product. However, if they are not looking at AWS and want to use it as a tool, they should not use it. For such cases, they can use the available free and open-source versions of the tools.

Whatever features are there in my system are all available in the solution. Out-of-box migration is also available. I don't see anything that is missing. My system is a real-time system. For me, it's a relational database with straightforward data structures. The volume is much higher if someone has big data processing migration, which may be a problem. For any big data solution, they will have to rework it. The product will not support it. When you have properly structured data, it is not that difficult for AWS to make it. I don't know how effective it will be if you have unstructured data, like big data and unstructured datasets. I have not seen a lot of use cases.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We have a database team that supports migrations to public, private, and hybrid clouds depending on the client's needs.

Prior to the migration, during the earlier stages, we had a lot of problems. SCT is a migration tool provided by Amazon that helps us to convert the schema. 

We have an in-built tool provided by Amazon. It is a database migration tool that supports a smooth migration. The solution is instantaneous. We can launch the service and reduce the end number of manpower.

Our organization works with both client data migration and the cost governance part. Years ago, the price was nominal and acceptable for the client to do a migration. Now, prices are challenging, especially with versions continually changing.

We have Azure and GCP in place. Amazon provides a hybrid solution, so people are accustomed to adapting all these technologies. Cost is the only factor that is challenging.

AWS Database is supporting six or seven flavors of RDS. In the next release, I would like to extend the other database as well. There is a need for extra features that are available in open source. For example, for Postgres, we have limited features of admin availability. If it were standard, it would be very helpful for the database team as well as the migration team.

I have been working with AWS Database Migration Service for six years.

This is a stable solution. In the past six years, we have faced two or three periods of downtime for a few minutes each time.

AWS Database Migration Service is scalable. The solution was configured six years ago. When the threshold is reached, the system will automatically scale up. When the threshold is reduced, the system will reduce the resources. 

We have over 10,000 users of AWS Database Migration Service.

We contact customer service and support, through chat or a call, with any issues we encounter.

I would rate customer service and support a four out of five overall.

Positive

The composition of AWS Database Migration Service is simple. However, each and every code that is legacy creates dynamic code. Whatever solution worked today can not be reused in the next migration. 

On a scale of one to five, with five being a good price, I would rate AWS Database Migration Service a two.

We are part of a database team. We get requests from Azure on-premise and hybrid data migration as well. We work with different cloud providers. Azure is more cost-effective than Amazon. We selected Amazon because it started first.

Overall, I would rate AWS Database Migration Service an eight out of 10.

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.

I am using AWS Database Migration Service for migrations and relationship migrations.

The most valuable features of the AWS Database Migration Service are the ease of migration, beneficial storage system, security, and simple instance creation. Additionally, the cloud that is provided is more complete than other solutions.

AWS Database Migration Service can become complex when testing. Other solutions, such as Microsoft Azure makes it easy to do. There are more steps to complete tasks in AWS Database Migration Service than in Microsoft Azure.

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service for approximately five years.

The stability of the AWS Database Migration Service is good.

AWS Database Migration Service is scalable.

I have not contacted support.

I have used Microsoft Azure previously and it is overall easier to use than AWS Database Migration Service. 

My advice to those new to this solution is for them to take notes and know all the documentation needed for the migrations.

I rate AWS Database Migration Service a nine out of ten.

We utilize it for mostly heterogeneous migration when you are migrating from one RDBMS platform to another. Obviously, we can use it for homogeneous migrations as well. However, it really comes in handy when you are migrating from the same source platform to the same destination. 

You get a lot of other options for migration, for example, you get different types of backups. You get the option for the native replication being supported by the RDBMS engines. However, when you are migrating from one platform to another platform, which is a heterogeneous case, you need some kind of Golden Gate, CDC, and all that. DMS with heterogeneous migration is, therefore, really very handy, particularly with data transformation and migration use cases.

They're working and improving this service further. They were developing DMS for various use cases, including those specific to Babel Fish. 

It is easy to set up. 

The solution can scale. 

It is very stable. 

Support is helpful.

The performance of data migration could be smoother.

I've been using the solution for almost a year. 

The solution has been stable in my experience. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

This is a very scalable product. Expanding out is easy.

The most recent project I did was with a data size that was relatively small. In past, some of my colleagues told me that DMS gets performance issues and that the data migration performance issues they faced happened when the data size was huge. On the other hand, AWS says that for huge data sizes, you need to increase the size of your resources. Therefore, I cannot say with confidence if the issues were the fault of the product or the fault of the size of resources. However, I have heard it lacks performance for large data sets.

We've used the solution for two clients in two different data migrations. 

Technical support has been good. they are helpful and responsive. 

It is very easy to set up the solution. It's not complex at all. 

Users do need to pay for licensing, and the cost is based on the resources used. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten.