Amazon RDS on Outposts Reviews

I have experience with AWS. I have about five years of experience with AWS products. The AWS products I deal with include virtual machines, EC2, database, basic storage, S3, and basic usage. I have experience with virtual machines, specifically Amazon EC2. I have experience with Amazon EC2, the Amazon virtual machine. In my use case, it wasn't necessary to have Multi-AZ deployments in Amazon RDS on Outposts, even if it's more expensive; I only needed one AZ.

I found Amazon RDS on Outposts very easy to assess the compatibility with various databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL. There was a use case where my customer had a MySQL database, and it was very easy to migrate the simple MySQL to the correspondent Amazon RDS on Outposts. There wasn't anything specific in the database such as stored procedures that complicated the migration.

The company I have this consultancy with previously provisioned the database by installing the MySQL database on an EC2 instance, managing it with our team, and then they migrated this MySQL installed on EC2 to Amazon RDS on Outposts. It was a use case.

The most important feature of Amazon RDS on Outposts for me is the self-managed aspect. The user doesn't have to worry about putting the service online, scaling the solution, and they don't have to worry about backups and other administrative tasks. The self-managed feature by AWS is very interesting.

I use the automated backups in Amazon RDS on Outposts, and I recommend it. I work as a consultant for AWS products, and I have recommended Amazon RDS on Outposts and the automatic backup.

Automated backups are helpful because the technical team doesn't have to worry about backups, making it much easier. It frees the technical team to deal with other kinds of questions within their projects.

Amazon RDS on Outposts positively impacted my organization by being very useful to migrate, freeing the technical team to think about other matters instead of focusing just on backups and provisioning the database.

Areas that could be improved with Amazon RDS on Outposts for Brazilians include the cost because it remains a very important consideration. The general self-managing service is a concern as well because of cost. For Brazilians, pricing in dollars is a difficult issue, which significantly impacts the criteria for choosing one service over another.

I have about five years of experience with AWS products.

I never used Amazon's technical support. The documentation for Amazon was good, and the use case was very simple. There was no need to use advanced features that would require technical support.

Neutral

The company I have this consultancy with previously provisioned the database by installing the MySQL database on an EC2 instance, managing it with our team, and then they migrated this MySQL installed on EC2 to Amazon RDS on Outposts. It was a use case.

I found that technically there was no difference between Oracle MySQL and Amazon RDS on Outposts. The main difference was the self-management aspect, compared to a service that the technical team must lead.

Regarding price, using Amazon RDS on Outposts was a little bit more expensive than using EC2.

The initial setup of Amazon RDS on Outposts was very easy—almost straightforward.

Regarding price, using Amazon RDS on Outposts was a little bit more expensive than using EC2.

I have used DB2. I also deal with databases, specifically with Amazon EC2. I have heard about Amazon AppStream and Amazon Kendra, but I have never used them. I used Amazon Transcribe just a little bit before.

I used Amazon Transcribe only for experiments, only to learn about it. I used all the AWS AI tools only for learning matters. I learned about Amazon Transcribe because it was an AWS feature. I was trying to learn what kind of solutions AWS has about AI in general.

Other than EC2, the only AWS products I have experience with are virtual machines, EC2, storage, S3, database, and Amazon RDS on Outposts, the basic use.

In terms of use cases for Amazon RDS on Outposts, I use it for personal use, and I am a postgraduate teacher, and I recommend it to my students to use in their scholarship matters. They usually deal with web applications, some e-commerce, and basic registry applications, and they use Amazon RDS on Outposts as a storage database.

The automated backups help a lot with my database management. Amazon RDS on Outposts positively impacted my organization by being very useful to migrate, freeing the technical team to think about other matters instead of focusing just on backups and provisioning the database. The team was freed up to do other things, which saved a lot of time for them.

The initial setup of Amazon RDS on Outposts was very easy—almost straightforward. It was deployed in the cloud. I used AWS as the cloud provider for Amazon RDS on Outposts. The Amazon RDS on Outposts I used was located on AWS. It was not through the marketplace; it was the basic Amazon RDS on Outposts provided by AWS.

I rate Amazon RDS on Outposts an eight out of ten.

We use the solution primarily to support websites.

Amazon RDS gives me a separate instance to control and see the database without having the database sit on or reside within the EC2 instance. I separate the two because it gives me more visibility into Amazon RDS. Then, if I have any issues, it's not tied into that EC2 instance. I don't have to do a lot of configuration. The solution reduces the configuration and maintenance of the database.

The tool should include features to clone the RDS instances and have more central management for a lot of RDSs, not just every instance. Once you start scaling out, either you have to have code to update all the RDSs or the ability to manage those RDS instances.

I have been using Amazon RDS on Outposts for eight to nine years.

The solution's scalability helps when the database needs to grow in size or be more performant. Vertical scaling up the solution can be done pretty quickly. That part is very easy. Suppose I want a new type of instance and more storage. Regarding IOPS, greater storage performance and greater storage capacity are two ways you can easily increase the databases on Amazon RDS.

The technical support team sees it to the end whenever I need help.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is complex. You have to understand networking when filling out a form to create your RDS. You have to understand a few things. They've made some steps to make it easier, but the person who creates the RDS has to make some irrevocable decisions.

They can't be configured afterward. The person who utilizes it has to understand a few things, like networking security and database engines.

The solution's deployment has a learning curve, and you have to do it a couple of times to understand exactly what it is and what you want. The deployment is pretty fast and straightforward once you understand the parameters of what you're trying to deploy. Understanding what you're doing probably takes the longest part.

If you make any mistakes, you might have to redo it or configure it differently. It's great for those who can afford it. In my business practice, I make sure I can afford a test sandbox so that my mistakes don't impact production. I vet it all out in a different environment before I touch production.

The solution's biggest benefit for my customers is they don't have to manage IT infrastructure. They don't have to set up IT infrastructure. Cloud provides all that. They don't have to manage the whole data center, hardware, and software. Since they are consumers of IT, they do not want to do capital expenditures against IT.

They keep their capital expenditures towards their main business rather than IT. The cloud helps with that because they're small and don't have to spend more money to support these services than needed.

The solution can get expensive fast. If you don't keep up when Amazon does any kind of maintenance, the price shoots up 20 to 25 times. You have to be very mindful of that and watch out for it. I put monetary alerts to see where the monthly spending goes up.

It's not as straightforward, and it doesn't let you know when monetary increases occur if you don't make any changes when it comes to maintenance. I don't like the fact that I'm not informed that there'll be a monetary increase if these changes aren't made in a certain time frame.

Recommending the solution to other users depends on the use case, customer, and the customer's business profile. Suppose a customer is at a tipping point where their spend rate on IT is considerable, and they're in the cloud. I would ask them if they have any thoughts about going to on-prem because that can help reduce costs and make costs more consistent.

The solution works very well with EC2, one of the main services that consumes RDS. It works well within the AWS system. I don't believe you specifically use Amazon RDS for others outside of AWS.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the solution for our existing company website and HRMS. We use it to store HRMS and user data.

The solution is easy to manage.

We have some limitations in CPU because we have limited resources in the RDS service. If our database is too big, we sometimes face glitches in it.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

The solution is around 70% to 75% stable. However, we sometimes face some glitches.

We have the option to scale the tool if we need more space in the future.

AWS provides a better solution for issues over email. However, we face some issues with their chat communication because they don't provide accurate information over chat.

Neutral

The solution’s initial setup is simple. Just one person can deploy the solution in half an hour.

The solution saves around 15% to 20% time because a single person handles everything, and we don't need any experts to manage the services.

Amazon RDS on Outposts is expensive compared to other solutions.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

The integration of the solution with our on-premises infrastructure is very simple.

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

My company uses Amazon RDS for three to five of our clients, of which one is for a fitness application meant for social well-being. One of the Other use cases associated with the product is related to a restaurant application used to manage the ordering system. One of our company's other clients is a not-for-profit organization that uses the tool for transactional information regarding certain activities.

In Amazon RDS, there are multiple layers of databases. In Amazon RDS, if I talk about MySQL, I would like to see some improvements in its version upgrades because its upgrade from MySQL 5.7 to MySQL 8 was not straightforward. So I would like it if Amazon does some research since one of our company's clients needs to upgrade to MySQL 8, for which there is no straightforward process. My company had to do a lot of research, and still, the customer is not able to migrate from MySQL's older version to MySQL 8. As a solution as a whole, it is a good product.

I have been using Amazon RDS on Outposts for two years.

During migration processes, the environment used to remain stable with the product in place but when it came into production, some issues used to occur in the solution. The tool was not as robust as its on-premises version since our company had to face some blockages, after which we started to do investigations and reduce the load that comes to the database.

I am really happy with the scalability offered by the product, but cost comes along with features that help the product to scale up. When clients are not so happy to scale to a level where their needs are not met, and a reason for it is because of the cost of the product.

My company operates as a service provider and is a consultant. My company deals with a lot of customers who use the product.

The solution's technical support is good and robust. When my company faced some CPU- utilization-related issues, Amazon's technical team actively participated in sorting out our issues in a very friendly manner.

The product's initial setup phase is simple and straightforward. The setup phase is friendly, and for a technical person, it is pretty much a good process.

I cannot exactly remember the product's deployment process because, in our company, we did a few backups and some restorations since that was all we needed at that point in time. At one point, our company had to move Amazon RDS from a public subnet to another private subnet, where we had some challenges as we had to spin up a new system separately and do the migrations, but still, because of the snapshot backups and restore, everything was possible, and we could bring the product into our organization.

The licenses are included with the subscription my company purchases from Amazon. None of my customers who use the product came to us asking for the password or anything like that to use the solution. My company gets a license which includes everything. My company only provides the subscription cost to our customers, and once they agree with the amount proposed by us, we go ahead with the implementation of the product.

I would say that the product is not integrated with any on-premises environment. For the use cases for which my company manages the product, I would say that the drawbacks I have seen in the solution are associated with SQL servers and Amazon RDS since, after a certain level of CPU utilization, the systems get unexpectedly impacted by it. Nowadays, my company is proactively monitoring setups and is allowed to make sure that the product doesn't reach a certain level of CPU utilization, which may cause the systems to suffer. There are four teams in my company that manage the product, and if its CPU utilization level reaches a certain threshold, we make sure that application usage is not kept at a minimal level insert scenarios.

When my company used to use the on-premises version of the tool, we never encountered such issues. Even though there was some slowness, we did not encounter any issues with the company's product. In my company, when we were using Amazon RDS with SQL Server, it had a bit of an impact.

The tool's partition features work seamlessly because I have been using the partitioning functionality. My company introduced the partitioning feature about three months ago for table partitioning, and I see that such features are working robustly on the on-premises version. Snapshot backups have become very easy for our company and it is a very good feature with which we can easily spin up additional databases we require.

My company did not have a huge set of data to migrate, and so we did not have much of an issue with the migration process. My company is a service provider organization who does all the risk analysis. My company did not have any issues with whatever we tested and because of it, the migrations were okay.

I would say Amazon RDS is a good solution and easy to implement since you don't need to spend a lot of time on it, as it is a very straightforward tool. The suggestion I would like to provide is that you need to script everything so that you don't fall into a lot of issues. Suppose you can script all the steps that you are doing. When it comes to the parameters, Amazon RDS gives users a set of Amazon's default parameters. If anybody is facing any issues, look at the default parameters, which you can always configure, and create a parameter group.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I am building servers for SaaS applications.

The scalability and cost-effectiveness of AWS were beneficial during spikes in database usage, as it allowed our platform to adjust and remain operational. Our serverless solution saved us money by using minimal resources during low usage. Amazon RDS offers automatic backups, access control, and encryption, ensuring data safety and reliability.

I find the pricing to be expensive. I have had issues with support from AWS, as I am often directed to documentation instead of speaking directly to someone, which can be time-consuming. Better support would help me avoid costly mistakes during scaling.

I have used this solution for three years.

Amazon RDS is very stable. I have not experienced any stability problems, and once it is configured properly, it works seamlessly.

The product is easy to scale, but without proper support, scaling can become costly. It is easy to make mistakes leading to unnecessary expenses. I had to rely on external help due to the lack of direct AWS support.

While AWS support provides a good knowledge base, contacting an actual person is difficult. I rate the support seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have used DigitalOcean, which was much cheaper but required manual setup and maintenance. I did not switch, as the company already used AWS.

I have worked with BigQuery on Google as well. However, it is a completely different database and more expensive than AWS.

The initial setup of Amazon RDS is easy. I would rate it nine out of ten for ease of setup.

As we are a startup, the return on investment is still in progress, however, it allowed us to expand efficiently.

The pricing is high compared to other solutions. AWS support is beneficial yet hard to reach. I rate the pricing as eight out of ten.

Overall, I rate Amazon RDS eight out of ten.