General Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-07-04T10:11:34Z
Jul 4, 2024
In my experience, there is no need to maintain the product. I didn't try the tool's scalability. I was using the TRUNCATE TABLE command in every other ETL. TRUNCATE TABLE means I empty the data every time I load it. It was just a relational storage mechanism, basically, for a few gigabytes of data daily. Each ETL on a daily basis in the pipeline is used to erase what was there for the previous jobs and reload Amazon RDS, and when the loading in Amazon RDS was complete, there was another process in the pipeline that we used to bring the data across to Redshift. I never used it in a very sophisticated manner. I have not tested the AI capabilities with the product. I know that a lot of the competition, whether inter or intra-cloud, is fierce nowadays, and AI solutions are popping up everywhere. I simply haven't had the chance yet to test the AI capabilities in AWS. It will be my next project. The trade-off is between control and peace of mind. If you want control, and obviously, you cannot choose RDS. If you want peace of mind and you don't want to think about backing up the database or creating a high availability policy around it, then definitely go for Amazon RDS. If you have some, if you are a startup, for instance, testing new things, I wouldn't go for Amazon RDS simply because you don't have control over the database. If you are an established company and want to move from on-premise to the cloud, you have the once-off migration task from your on-premise into the cloud, and everything has already been concretized. The database that supports the application is already well-established. If you are not introducing new features or experimenting with the product to introduce new features, then Amazon RDS is a good choice. I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.
I attend training sessions via calls with Amazon to learn about Amazon RDS. If you have many sites for your company, using Amazon RDS can help with the database area. If you have any problem with the database, you can choose Amazon RDS. I like the product very much. I rate the tool a ten out of ten.
For relational databases, AWS Firewall is a recommended option. In the worst-case scenario with no local data center, alternative cloud providers like Azure or GCP may be considered. The cost factor also plays a significant role in favoring AWS. It tends to be more cost-effective compared to Google and Azure. Overall, I rate it nine out of ten.
Advisory and IT Transformation Consultant at Services dot cloud
Real User
Top 20
2023-09-27T10:08:27Z
Sep 27, 2023
I would tell those who plan to use Amazon RDS to understand how it works and determine the pricing part before purchasing it since it is expensive. The ease of using Amazon RDS depends on your platform, design, and software. Amazon RDS is easy to use if you have an AWS infrastructure. With Amazon RDS, integrations with third-party solutions can be easy and beneficial for the product's monitoring part only. In general, integrating Amazon RDS with third-party solutions can be a complex process. I rate the overall product an eight and a half out of ten.
I use the solution every day. People who are considering the solution must use it. Forget about the price. It is way better to use RDS than to host a database ourselves. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
It would be best if you were careful when picking the RDS instances. Check the network and storage aspects and then decide on the size of the RDS instances. The cost may be high for you if you pick big RDS instances. On the other hand, small RDS instances can bring performance issues. I rate the product a nine out of ten.
I would advise others to use the solution as it is easy to deploy, but they will need to take care of the running cost. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
Everyone should definitely use RDS because it's the next revolutionary solution in the market. A managed database is something that is required. Amazon RDS is quite a well-managed and stable service, but there are a few parameters that are still unclear from their end. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
I give the solution a nine out of ten. The solution supports all organization sizes. Amazon RDS is utilized globally, but in certain regions, such as China, Ali Cloud is predominantly utilized due to specific requirements and restrictions. Amazon RDS is a viable solution, however, storage and monitoring costs can add up significantly. Therefore, organizations should be mindful of these expenses and budget accordingly.
Cloud and Infrastructure Engineer at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-03-16T06:25:23Z
Mar 16, 2023
We have a few engineers doing the maintenance of the solution. They maintain the standardized code that everyone uses. My advice to others is for them to use a different solution, such as Aurora, DynamoDB, or MongoDB. Amazon RDS is only used if the user wants to use a legacy-type application. This is a well-established solution. I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten.
Lead Data Engineer at Seven Lakes Enterprises, Inc.
Real User
Top 5
2022-08-01T15:22:00Z
Aug 1, 2022
I would rate Amazon RDS eight or nine out of 10. I recommend RDS because it makes your life super easy. You can focus on your main functionality, your product and on maintaining your infra. It is highly recommended for small and mid-sized organizations. We have thousands of RDS users in our company. The number of users is directly proportional to the number of clients and their user tools. As we grow, so will the number of users. The only deployment we do is for RDS. In fact, the product itself does the whole stack deployment. You don't need a deployment team for RDS when it's service-based or for the separate deployment of S3. The same person can do RDS on S3. Usually, you would have a cloud ops team of two or three, depending on the number of clients and the complexity and size of the projects. If you're changing your tech stack and working with new cloud technologies, RDS makes sense. And one of the major costs of legacy technologies is RDBMS licensing, which can be managed and used optimally using RDS.
I rate Amazon RDS nine out of 10. I recommend it. Cost is the only issue. RDS is one of the best choices if you need scalability and reliability, but you're not worried about the cost. Some of the features will not be there. For example, some on-premises things we want to set up will not be supported there. There are some challenges there that they are fixing.
RDS MySQL (and Postgres) are great managed database services. AWS provides a large range of database instance sizes from micro to very large machines. RDS can scale, and creating Replicas is very easy to accomplish. If you're unsure if you should start using RDS or not, I suggest you consult with a MySQL RDS DBA or Data Architect who has used RDS for several years before making a decision.
CTO at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2021-01-24T09:06:19Z
Jan 24, 2021
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.
For new/existing customers building new products, such as Ola, Uber, or Swiggy, instead of building their own data center first and launching the product which involves massive costs, AWS offers a better quality solution if they are unsure about whether their product will succeed in the market. They can build the product, start making money, and utilize the pay-as-you-go model. Then, they can scale the product depending on demand utilization. That appears to be the best business case for Amazon Web Services.
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.
Sr. Database Architect at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2019-11-28T06:06:00Z
Nov 28, 2019
We're currently expanding multiple versions of the solution. We use the cloud deployment model and most clients are also in the AWS environment. I'd advise others to pay attention to the sizing, You don't want to over or under-size. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) is a web service that makes it easier to set up, operate, and scale a relational database in the cloud. It provides cost-efficient, resizeable capacity for an industry-standard relational database and manages common database administration tasks.
I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten.
In my experience, there is no need to maintain the product. I didn't try the tool's scalability. I was using the TRUNCATE TABLE command in every other ETL. TRUNCATE TABLE means I empty the data every time I load it. It was just a relational storage mechanism, basically, for a few gigabytes of data daily. Each ETL on a daily basis in the pipeline is used to erase what was there for the previous jobs and reload Amazon RDS, and when the loading in Amazon RDS was complete, there was another process in the pipeline that we used to bring the data across to Redshift. I never used it in a very sophisticated manner. I have not tested the AI capabilities with the product. I know that a lot of the competition, whether inter or intra-cloud, is fierce nowadays, and AI solutions are popping up everywhere. I simply haven't had the chance yet to test the AI capabilities in AWS. It will be my next project. The trade-off is between control and peace of mind. If you want control, and obviously, you cannot choose RDS. If you want peace of mind and you don't want to think about backing up the database or creating a high availability policy around it, then definitely go for Amazon RDS. If you have some, if you are a startup, for instance, testing new things, I wouldn't go for Amazon RDS simply because you don't have control over the database. If you are an established company and want to move from on-premise to the cloud, you have the once-off migration task from your on-premise into the cloud, and everything has already been concretized. The database that supports the application is already well-established. If you are not introducing new features or experimenting with the product to introduce new features, then Amazon RDS is a good choice. I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.
I attend training sessions via calls with Amazon to learn about Amazon RDS. If you have many sites for your company, using Amazon RDS can help with the database area. If you have any problem with the database, you can choose Amazon RDS. I like the product very much. I rate the tool a ten out of ten.
I rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten.
For relational databases, AWS Firewall is a recommended option. In the worst-case scenario with no local data center, alternative cloud providers like Azure or GCP may be considered. The cost factor also plays a significant role in favoring AWS. It tends to be more cost-effective compared to Google and Azure. Overall, I rate it nine out of ten.
Overall, I rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten.
I would tell those who plan to use Amazon RDS to understand how it works and determine the pricing part before purchasing it since it is expensive. The ease of using Amazon RDS depends on your platform, design, and software. Amazon RDS is easy to use if you have an AWS infrastructure. With Amazon RDS, integrations with third-party solutions can be easy and beneficial for the product's monitoring part only. In general, integrating Amazon RDS with third-party solutions can be a complex process. I rate the overall product an eight and a half out of ten.
I use the solution every day. People who are considering the solution must use it. Forget about the price. It is way better to use RDS than to host a database ourselves. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
It would be best if you were careful when picking the RDS instances. Check the network and storage aspects and then decide on the size of the RDS instances. The cost may be high for you if you pick big RDS instances. On the other hand, small RDS instances can bring performance issues. I rate the product a nine out of ten.
I would advise others to use the solution as it is easy to deploy, but they will need to take care of the running cost. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
Everyone should definitely use RDS because it's the next revolutionary solution in the market. A managed database is something that is required. Amazon RDS is quite a well-managed and stable service, but there are a few parameters that are still unclear from their end. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
I rate Amazon RDS a ten out of ten.
I would give it a nine because it's a reliable and cost-effective solution.
I give the solution a nine out of ten. The solution supports all organization sizes. Amazon RDS is utilized globally, but in certain regions, such as China, Ali Cloud is predominantly utilized due to specific requirements and restrictions. Amazon RDS is a viable solution, however, storage and monitoring costs can add up significantly. Therefore, organizations should be mindful of these expenses and budget accordingly.
I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.
We have a few engineers doing the maintenance of the solution. They maintain the standardized code that everyone uses. My advice to others is for them to use a different solution, such as Aurora, DynamoDB, or MongoDB. Amazon RDS is only used if the user wants to use a legacy-type application. This is a well-established solution. I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten.
Overall, I would rate this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
I rate Amazon RDS eight out of 10 overall.
I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten.
I would rate Amazon RDS eight or nine out of 10. I recommend RDS because it makes your life super easy. You can focus on your main functionality, your product and on maintaining your infra. It is highly recommended for small and mid-sized organizations. We have thousands of RDS users in our company. The number of users is directly proportional to the number of clients and their user tools. As we grow, so will the number of users. The only deployment we do is for RDS. In fact, the product itself does the whole stack deployment. You don't need a deployment team for RDS when it's service-based or for the separate deployment of S3. The same person can do RDS on S3. Usually, you would have a cloud ops team of two or three, depending on the number of clients and the complexity and size of the projects. If you're changing your tech stack and working with new cloud technologies, RDS makes sense. And one of the major costs of legacy technologies is RDBMS licensing, which can be managed and used optimally using RDS.
I rate Amazon RDS nine out of 10. I recommend it. Cost is the only issue. RDS is one of the best choices if you need scalability and reliability, but you're not worried about the cost. Some of the features will not be there. For example, some on-premises things we want to set up will not be supported there. There are some challenges there that they are fixing.
I would rate Amazon RDS a ten out of ten because it is lightweight, and the flexibility.
The product is pretty good, but its support is very expensive. I would rate it a ten out of ten.
RDS MySQL (and Postgres) are great managed database services. AWS provides a large range of database instance sizes from micro to very large machines. RDS can scale, and creating Replicas is very easy to accomplish. If you're unsure if you should start using RDS or not, I suggest you consult with a MySQL RDS DBA or Data Architect who has used RDS for several years before making a decision.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon RDS a ten.
I would rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon RDS a seven.
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.
For new/existing customers building new products, such as Ola, Uber, or Swiggy, instead of building their own data center first and launching the product which involves massive costs, AWS offers a better quality solution if they are unsure about whether their product will succeed in the market. They can build the product, start making money, and utilize the pay-as-you-go model. Then, they can scale the product depending on demand utilization. That appears to be the best business case for Amazon Web Services.
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.
We're currently expanding multiple versions of the solution. We use the cloud deployment model and most clients are also in the AWS environment. I'd advise others to pay attention to the sizing, You don't want to over or under-size. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.