Amazon RDS Reviews

We use Amazon RDS for storage and scaling the database.

Amazon RDS is a scalable solution.

The solution's connectivity and response logs could be improved.

I have been using Amazon RDS for two years.

I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten for stability.

We never faced any issues with the solution's scalability. Hundreds to millions of users are using the solution, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution's initial setup is complex.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. To deploy Amazon RDS, we need to establish the network within the parent organization account and create the respective VPNs.

The return on investment with Amazon RDS is average.

The solution’s pricing could be cheaper. Maintaining the geo-replication would be more expensive, and you need to set it up accordingly.

It varies on many parameters, but typically, ten people are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

I would recommend Amazon RDS to other users.

Overall, I rate Amazon RDS a five out of ten.

I use the tool to find out latency. 

The tool is very easy to use and configure. 

I would like to see improvements in the tool's automatic restart. 

I have been using the solution for two to three months. 

The tool is stable. 

The tool's support is nice. 

Positive

The tool's initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution to host databases.

The product provides ease of management. We do not have to worry about the database. We just worry about the data. It is really convenient.

The solution’s scalability, usability, and availability are valuable to us. It’s a really good solution.

The product must add more older versions of the database engines.

I have been using the solution for six years. I am using the latest version of the product.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. It is really, really scalable.

The initial deployment was straightforward. We can do it via CLI, or we can do it pretty much like a Windows machine. We can just click on the next button when prompted and click on finish at the end.

We see a 100% return on investment.

The cost varies depending on our use and our database engine. RDS is the database, and AWS manages it for us. It is cheaper to host on a cloud machine ourselves. RDS increases the cost because it manages the database. It’s really, really good. The solution is fairly priced.

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.

We use it in our organization since it is a managed database service. So we can manage our database within UAM.

My company decided to use the solution since it is a managed database service that provides control along with a UI for our databases.

The performance insight is a valuable feature of the solution since it gives us information on how much data has been and which queries have been taking a long time. Also, it shows the percentage of bin select queries while providing information on how insert queries work, along with the time required for operation and insertion while indicating the performance in sales.

There are a few aspects of database management that have room for improvement. There are a few parameters in the solution that are a bit unclear at our end as it's not understandable. So, for queries, they show them as other stuff which is not clearly mentioned. For the legends which they are giving, there should be some other help that could help us with the legends on the graphs.

I have been using Amazon RDS for three years. Since it's an AWS service, no one looks after the version. I am a customer of the solution.

It's a stable product.

Amazon RDS has been used for major applications, and multiple people work on the applications. So, around 600 people are using RDS to work on applications.

There is no specific technical support for the solution. I rate the support a six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy.

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.

The solution helps us to move databases from on-premises to other areas. 

Amazon RDS has helped in reducing the median cost for on-prem services.

Amazon RDS is easy to maintain and easy to deploy.

The running cost could be improved.

I have been using the solution for one year.

It is a stable solution. I rate it eight out of ten. 

The solution's scalability depends on the application. There are no fixed users. I plan to increase the usage of the solution. 

Previously, I used Oracle SQL but switched to Amazon RDS because it's easy to manage and easy to set.

The initial setup is easy. For the deployment, one has to prepare the pipeline and set up the security configuration. The complete deployment takes a couple of days. Three software engineers are required in the deployment process. I rate the setup an eight out of ten.

The solution is expensive.

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. 

We use Amazon RDS in our company to maintain logs and database records.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it requires an easy setup phase, and it is also easy to use while not being too heavy on its users. Amazon RDS as a database is sufficient for our company's use cases.

In our company, we have not considered what needs improvement in the solution.

The solution should consider offering some email support to its users. The support team of Amazon RDS provides us with some links to go through whenever we face some issues, but it doesn't work for us.

I have been using Amazon RDS for the past two years. Speaking about the solution's version, I currently use MySQL 8.0.32. My company is a customer of the solution.

It is a pretty stable solution.

It is definitely a scalable solution, but we have not scaled up to the maximum since we have not faced any problems yet, considering we operate well within the threshold, which makes the product good for us.

My entire team consisting of around fifty people uses the solution.

Unfortunately, our company doesn't have the developer support option in our account, and because of this, we cannot contact any technical support.

My company uses Linux-based products, so we use Ubuntu Linux.

The initial setup was easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

In my case, MySQL is free, and if there are any costs, then it is much less than other solutions since all such things usually come bundled with the hardware. We don't pay separate license fees for MySQL, but the hardware cost depends on what machines we use.

To those planning to use Amazon RDS, I would say that it is pretty simple to start with, especially if you don't have a complicated database architecture. If the product's potential users meet the aforementioned factors, Amazon RDS would be the best, especially for those dealing with MySQL.

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

The product is pretty good for small or mid-scale organizations that don't have the luxury of proper DBAs or a large infra team. Scaling up and down is relatively easy without a proper setup. And apart from reducing these overheads, you have better performance insights if you use a server. And if you are serverless, your costs are lower. So we use both.

Concerning performance, when a cluster upgrades from lower to upper config, the connection drops. This could be solved by better coding and settings and included in the next release.

It's supposed to be scalable, but we don't feel that. True, there won't be any drops. The solution they gave was to maintain our cluster at a level sufficient for our peak load. However, that will probably defeat the whole purpose of on-demand scalability. So that is certainly where we might need to rethink the solution. It actually works in real-time, but it's not at a level where we can think of five seconds or 10 seconds there. 

We've been using the solution for three years.

Two of our products are in production on RDS, so we use RDS extensively. RDS routers are valid on two of our product suites. And then RDS SQL Server 2016 instance 52 is on many of our client implementations.

It's supposed to be scalable, but we don't feel that. True, there won't be any drops. The solution they gave was to maintain our cluster at a level sufficient for our peak load. However, that will probably defeat the whole purpose of on-demand scalability. So that is certainly where we might need to rethink.

RDS support is decent enough.

We contact tech support about different issues in general and concerning the services we provide. 

Before deployment, we do our POC in a lower environment, making everything very clear. But whenever we have downtime or hiccups, we investigate. And if needed, we reach out to the tech support team for clarification.

One of the challenges of AWS RDS is that it doesn't support performance insight. So we need to write our own script or use third-party tools.

If Amazon could provide the same support for serverless solutions that it provides for server-based ones, like RDS instance-based SQL Server, that would be a great improvement.

I would rank the setup as eight out of 10, along with the Microsoft SQL Server on RDS. It took 10 to 15 minutes. It was straightforward for me as my field is data and data engineering. But it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone unfamiliar with the technologies because the documentation is pretty clear.

We do everything in-house. So typically, we don't hire consultants unless we land up in a very niche area. We also work closely with AWS teams on different POCs before launch.

We are not currently scaling up our legacy infra, so we are definitely seeing dollars there, typically around 3K. Since it's not calculated, I'm giving the figure off the top of my head. So this will be quite a different figure for different people.

On pricing, I would rate RDS six out of 10 because if you don't know how to optimize and use your tool properly, the cost might hurt you. It would've been great if they had some cost alerts. You can usually manage using CloudWatch, but a simple notification that your costs just went up sharply or you overspent would help. I know there are videos and instructions on AWS. I'm not saying it's not there. But when the technology is new to you, it's hard to know what went wrong. And certainly, if you're not looking at your bill, you will be shocked by the amount.

We had one or two bad instances or hiccups, but now we have everything under control. The licensing is fine for us, but it may be a challenge for new users.

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.

We have on-prem servers and our database is hosted in the cloud on Amazon RDS. Everything is automated there, like setting up backups and replication. We have around 40 persons using RDS.

Amazon RDS gives us the ability to select as many tools, replicas, regions, and zones as we want.

I've used Amazon RDS for six or seven years.

RDS is stable. A cloud solution is always stable, and RDS servers are solid.

Amazon RDS is highly scalable. It is much simpler to scale up compared to an on-premise solution where you need to buy new hardware and migrate all the data. Ifwe need more capacity, there is a symbol that you can click on to upgrade your hardware. 

If you want one more server in a different region, you can spin it up and everything is done on the cloud. You can just select what you need and go, whether you're going to downgrade or upgrade to system type TX for whatever configuration you want.

Amazon support is good, but we've only communicated with them via email so far. We email support when we have questions, and they've always come up with the proper solution.

Before Amazon, we had MySQL and PostgreSQL, but it's not like we switched We still have on-premise solutions and some things in the cloud. Most of our stuff is still on-prem. It depends on if it's a critical application that is heavily used, so you don't have downtime.

Installation is straightforward. You choose your database for RDS, like MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, etc., and select the distance type. It takes a maximum of five minutes time to select and set up the system. Our servers can be up and running in 10 to 15 minutes, and data migration took about an hour.

We have several in-house teams with separate databases, so they usually take care of it for us. I worked on some databases. We have a different method for RDS. One stacked, so we build our own scripts and publish them in the stack.

Amazon RDS is a little costly, but it also reduces the number of full-time employees needed. We require fewer system admins or DBS because RDS reduces our workload. 

It's pay as you go. Once you are using it, you will get support. You don't need to buy a yearly license to get support. If we deployed our server there, we would get support from them.

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.