Oracle Database as a Service Reviews

Our organization works in the gambling domain and we have gambling software. We use Oracle Database as a Service for our customers. The solution incorporates the user transaction database of our business.

I would like the tool to improve the setup because it is complex.

We have been working with the solution for more than ten years.

The performance stability of the solution works fine. The solution is stable.

The tool is scalable. We have more than 100,000 customers using the solution.

The support is good but I would like to improve their time period.

The setup of the solution is complex. However, we get support in case of any problems.

We needed help to deploy the solution.

I have found that the solution serves the money.

I will rate this solution a nine out of ten. We have been using this solution for the past ten years. We will continue the partnership. I do not expect to see any further integration of the tool with our software. I will recommend this tool to those with a large database.

Oracle's Database as a Service has the potential to support both artificial intelligence and machine learning, but it seems that its capabilities in these areas have yet to be fully developed.

Security is a critical aspect for us, as well as the process of patching and updating the system. 

The availability of the system is ensured by running it on two on-premise servers, which are identical and located separately.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its security, performance, and availability.

There is room for improvement in the speed of the data migration process.

I have been working with Oracle Database as a Service for a few years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

Oracle Database as a Service is highly scalable.

We have eight users who use the solution for project management, which we deploy for our clients. However, this is not the primary function of our own work. As an example, one of our clients has 50 users running a similar deployment.

In addition to our own usage, the solution is also used by the company we have contracted for core banking. 

We purchase the solution from them and they take care of its deployment and management. Therefore, we are not directly involved in the deployment process. 

While we initially went with Oracle, our clients are now the ones who are involved in the deployment process for the core banking solution.

I have only contacted technical support through proxy.

Previously, we were working with MySQL.

The initial setup is generally considered straightforward, although there may be some challenges, particularly when new team members are introduced. However, once the team becomes familiar with the solution, the setup process becomes easier and more streamlined, even when working remotely.

Deploying the solution is generally considered to be easy, with the only major challenge being the migration of data from another database to this one. 

The data migration process can be complex and time-consuming.

To deploy the solution, it is important to have the correct hardware specifications in place. Once these specifications have been met, and the necessary hardware is available, the deployment process can begin.

Once the database has been installed and configured, the system should be up and running.

What has been done is that an annual subscription model has been launched, which includes the payment of both the AML (Annual Maintenance Fee) and the subscription fee, paid on a yearly basis.

I have evaluated both SQL and MySQL, and I have found that MySQL lacks the interactivity and capacity compared to SQL.

Oracle is typically chosen when a highly robust and reliable system is required.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

I would rate Oracle Database as a Service a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for different projects. One is our ERP project. One we are using for billing purposes for a billing project. However, we later migrated that. We also use it for payment systems. We've used it for two or three projects.

In terms of technicality, Oracle is very good. However, in terms of licensing, it comes at a very high cost. They should have worked on a costing basis. 

It's a very robust database product. It has more capabilities like object storage, file-level storage, and database. The activity redundancy in the database is great. There is DCDR replication. It also has a GUI interface, so we can get the dashboard capabilities and can manage and monitor some things in the database from that GUI interface.

The solution is stable.

It is scalable. 

Technical support has been great.

It doesn't have an in-built database load balancer, like a database proxy and a database firewall. It should provide this feature also, the database load balancing.

The deployment is complex. 

We used the solution for almost seven years.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

I have found that the solution is scalable. 

We have 100 or so users. For the databases, we are using them for more transactions, like 50 or 60 more for all the transactions we are getting with our system.

At this point, we do not have plans to increase usage. 

The solution has good technical support. We find them to be helpful and responsive. 

Positive

I have used a different solution prior to Oracle. I can't recall the name of the product, however. 

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

We only need three people to handle the deployment. That includes one technician and two DB admins.

We had help from Oracle with the setup.

We have not really seen an ROI since the product is so expensive. 

The product comes with a perpetual license with the per socket license. You have the sockets in your server, and you have to pay for them. However, the licensing cost is very dynamic. It depends upon your license provider or the Oracle product manager. The cost depends upon that.

It's a very expensive product.

There may be an open-source option. However, Oracle has proprietary features. Still, it is quite costly in terms of the environment.

I'd recommend potential new users work on their licensing and requirements before procuring the Oracle licenses. They need to manage their ATS cost also in future plans if they're planning for two years or more. They should take care of this ATS part also and decide what their requirements are so they can get a good discount on that.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

So from the database perspective, we usually are talking about three important things. So the obvious ones are the multitenancy in the pluggable databases. The second category, I would call it performance, making sure that we are getting the right value from the databases in terms of data access. And the third one is obviously the security. So, we are more interested in implementing solutions that, we are actually excited to see Oracle come in with release two with all the issues we have, from 11g and on. So, 12.1 is there, but we want to see what's coming up in 12c at release two, and we are really excited about multitenancy. The whole security aspect, and then the performance as such.

So from the cloud perspective, I think there are too many vendors out there. One of the things we are excited from the Oracle perspective is their ability to take us off of our backups, the database backup. Using that, they can take us to the cloud and we want to try that out, mostly on their test end, as of now. And once we see how the ROI is, and what kind of a performance we are getting and then also check on how the security is, then we might probably consider going a little bit deeper into low-level production applications, all the way into the business applications.

So right now we are evaluating their trial period with Oracle on migrating in their databases, and we are also excited to use some of their backup and recovery solutions, which basically, you take your database and you run your backups, right now it is running on your local disk, but then we are configuring that to go into the cloud. So one of the cool features we are using from Oracle is the RMAN. It takes a second set of channels, and just take it as a destination and that goes into the cloud. So we can restore it at the same time from either of the options, on-prem or from the cloud. So we are excited to see how that works, because that is something that Oracle has recently come up with.

So we want to see, obviously, besides Oracle databases, what other databases can be provisioned and integrated in the cloud. So if I have to have an application running off of a non-Oracle database, and I have an application and the database running in cloud, which is an Oracle, I want to see if I can integrate them through what kind of a web service, how can I transfer the data? How do I move my processes without having to come back into my on prem and then go back into the secondary cloud? So those are some of the integration points I'm looking at.

And the second important thing I'm looking at is, the overall governance. How Oracle can provide their cloud control and give use the ability to manage the on prem and the off prem cloud services, combined in a single view.

So obviously we did an ROI analysis and a TCU. So, we have seen that the cost is definitely a factor. And security is more important, so that's why we did not press the button on the production yet. So we are piloting with the non-prod to see what kind of security we're going to get, what kind of threats are we going to be exposed to. And once we are satisfied, once we get our sign-off from the management, we might probably pull the trigger. But we are in the evaluation period.

Onboarding: so the Database Cloud, the way we have seen is, so you have a cloud control and you go in and, based on your subscription, you actually get the environment. So once you get the environment, you generate the security keys to establish the network connectivity between the on prem to the public and once we have the provision done, then you can actually encrypt the data on the source side, and move them into the cloud through their cloud control utility. So that's how we migrate them. Now, we haven't done a lot of the big databases yet. So we are piloting on the small ones. So, so far, the pilot ones look good which are close to about 300 to 400 GB databases. But we want to see how that goes with couple of terabytes of databases.

Scalability is number one. Data transfer is number two. And security actually tops, on top of that. And the ability to move the workloads between on-prem and off-prem. So that's one of the big things you are looking at, and if we don't like things, and if you want to push back, and we want to come back to our on-prem, what options do we have? So, can we migrate easily from a public cloud to a private cloud and private cloud to an on-prem cloud, and vice-versa. So, having that ability is a big thing, because we don't want to invest in something where we go to the cloud but we don't know how to come back. So we don't want it to be a one-way street, we want to choose a product that can give us an opportunity to not only go into the cloud, but also in a worst-case scenario, come back out.

So initially we started with Amazon. We tested a little bit, but the security was a big thing for us and the way they handle security is a little different I don't necessarily say it is wrong or bad, it's just that I was not very comfortable having the keys being shared versus in Oracle, the security keys are owned by the customer which is us, as opposed to with the vendor, and that was a prime difference for us. And second thing was, Amazon cloud is more on the infrastructure provisioning and metered. They don't give a database as a service. They do have some options, but being an Oracle customer, we know what Oracle can provide, which is totally a value-add kind of a service, with a lot of different shaders, compared to the others like Amazon or Rackspace or a hundred different partners. But I think it's because we are very close with Oracle, we can see how they can give us those value add services.

So the Database Cloud on Oracle right now, I think it's there, but there is some room to grow. So I wouldn't give them 10 yet. I would hold on to that. Probably eight would be a better option. But I want to see the growth in terms of, not only on the vertical side, I want to see the horizontal growth, in terms of how they can leverage, as I said earlier, integrating with other systems. So, if they can grow both horizontally and vertically, then probably I can give them a 10. But at this time, they are not there yet.

So I would say, anybody who wants to get into the cloud, evaluate your options. Check out your dev and test environments first. Check out your backup as a service, because it's very easy. You just have to set your targets and push your database backups. So try with those two first, and see the difference, and compare that with your other vendors. And see what kind of a response latency you're getting from the cloud. And make the call. I mean, that's what I did, and it was clear.

We primarily use the on-premises version as our country does not allow the use of the cloud. We primarily use the solution as a database. 

We like the fact that it is very reliable. It's also very available. It's easy to find Oracle resources in our part of the world, and it's easy to replicate over other data centers. 

The functionality is good. It's flexible and easy to adjust. 

It is very reliable. 

The partitioning has been very useful. We like that we can do replication and indexing. 

The solution is stable.

It can scale, however, the cloud deployment would scale more easily. 

The solution is very expensive. 

We'd like to see better support for non-structured data and in-memory load. That would help with applications we need to cache. 

I've been using the solution for over ten years now. I've used it since about 2006 or 2008.

The solution is stable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. It is reliable, and the performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. I'd rate it six out of ten. On-premises is less scalable than the cloud. 

Technical support could be better. They should have more publicly available assistance instead of having a subscription. 

Neutral

We do use a bit of PostgreSQL. 

The initial setup was complex. I'd rate the ease of setup three out of ten. You need to understand the file system, and you need to understand Oracle very well before setup. It's not like Microsoft, where there is a setup Wizard to guide you. You need very specific knowledge. 

The setup might take a day or two in terms of deployment. However, you need to put in the tables and build the applications on top of that, and that part can take several months. 

We handled the setup in-house. 

I'd rate the pricing one out of ten. It is way too expensive. We do need to pay extra for other modules, for example, for partitioning and compression. You can also pay extra for assistance. It's already too much, and then they make you pay even more. 

We did look at SQL and MongoDB since starting with the solutions. However, we did not look at anything before choosing Oracle. 

We're customers and end-users. 

We have been using Oracle ERP for some time and are moving from on-premises to the cloud. 

I'd advise users to pay attention to licensing as it can get very, very expensive. Definitely look into other databases. 

I would rate the solution seven out of ten as it is the market leader and is very stable. 

The solution’s new version, Exadata, is good for managing enterprise workloads. It is number one in terms of performance. The solution is also good with sharding concepts.

I like the solution’s performance and real application concepts.

I would like to see improvements in the license cost. The solution is subscription-based for PaaS services. You need to buy your own authorized license.

I have been working with the solution for more than 20 years.

I would rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten since it is stable.

The solution is scalable and I would give a rating of ten out of ten for its scalability. We have more than 100 customers for the solution.

The solution’s setup is straightforward and doesn’t take more than a day to complete. The steps for the solution’s deployment include purchasing the tenancy and provisioning the database as per the license which you have purchased.

Customers need to pay extra costs for the solution based on their scope and business.

I would rate the solution a ten on ten. Anyone looking to implement the solution should be mindful of the sizing since it affects the licensing and AMC support. I would suggest customers to try the subscription-based pricing model rather than the optimized licensing one.

The primary use case of this solution is to manage enterprise customer data.

The most valuable features are the free tools provided to make the solution more secure.

The solution can be improved by reducing the pricing, making the deployment less complex, and increasing security.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The tech support is responsive and helps get the issues resolved swiftly. 

Positive

Previously to using this solution I used Microsoft SQS and switched over based on suggestions from the employees.

The initial setup is moderate to complex.

The implementation was completed through a vendor.

The solution is based on an annual fee.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We have around seven people using the solution in our organization.

The solution is expensive but I do recommend it to others.

I work in the data cloud, mostly with big data machines.

The stability is quite good.

It's a scalable product.

We found the setup for the cloud to be quite straightforward.

Technical support is great.

It's one of the best databases. It has a lot of features, which makes it easy to manage, easy to run, and offers the best performance. Everything is there. It's good to use.

In such a heavy product, there's always some level of improvement needed. 

On the cloud services, they need to improve some console-level items, including the logging of the databases on the console level.

I've been using the solution for 12 years. 

The solution is stable. The performance is good. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It scales quite nicely as necessary.

We have multiple customers using the solution. We have 20 people on our end handling admin duties. We have thousands of people using it as customers. 

We have had a good experience with technical support.

Positive

The solution is easy to set up if you're talking about the cloud. It's always very straightforward. It's not complex or difficult. 

I'd rate the ease of implementation 4.5 out of five. 

The cost of the solution varies. It depends on which features you plan to use, for example, or which specific solution.

I'd rate the price a three out of five in terms of affordability.

If you are a developer or you have developers to develop items in Oracle, then you should go with Oracle. If not, then definitely go for something else. Oracle is very vast and the performance is good, however, you need some knowledge. 

Potential new users should take some time to compare other databases together. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.