Amazon RDS Reviews

Amazon RDS is my primary database. I store and perform CRUD operations in it.

We used to have a separate database. We managed everything, including scaling. We faced memory issues when there were too many hits, so we manually increased or cleaned the memory. Amazon RDS is automatically scalable. No intervention is needed. Upscaling and downscaling happen automatically.

Now, we have tighter controls. Earlier, we had roles mapped with AD integrations to the server where the database is. We used to do a lot of work. Now, we have IAM integration. If a person has a particular IAM role, they can access it. Amazon RDS has good authentication, operation, and autoscaling. It has features similar to an ordinary database. We get to do the same job without worrying about the infrastructure.

Authentication, authorization, and autoscaling features solve half our problems. The integrations are good. When a record comes, I can create a DB trigger. I can store it in S3 buckets. We cannot do it in a traditional database. We will have to run a separate script for it.

We can connect the solution with multiple databases. The vendor is adding all kinds of databases to it. The data protection is good enough. The product solved our DevOps and admin problems. We can add RDS integration with CloudWatch to provide metrics on the database instances. We can do some customizable metric evaluations. We can fire requests with EventBridge depending on events.

The product should support new databases. RocketDB is written in C++. It is useful when we work with Kafka. The product should support more databases and not just the standard four to five databases. It will help the users to explore new avenues and not be confined to the standard ones.

The tool provides automatic backup, but the recovery is slow if something goes wrong. We need to wait for some time. If a failure happens, recovery takes some time. Meanwhile, we lose business. It would be great if it happens much faster. The cross-region replication settings are very complex. We need to do careful planning.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I have seldom faced crashes in AWS. I didn't face any issues with stability. I used to face stability issues four years back. Occasionally, crashes happened, but we had an automated snapshot feature. We could get back up from there. Occasionally, the vendor has a maintenance window during which they change the underlying infrastructure. Sometimes, due to some incompatibility, we face crashes. Otherwise, it is good 90 to 95% of the time.

The scalability is very good. The tool automatically scales up. It’s a relatively simple setup.

The initial setup is easy.

The licensing model changes often. The prices for different regions are different.

We are customers and partners. I recommend the product to others. It is a great tool. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the platform for simple applications with straightforward database structures.

The product's most valuable features are option groups, S3 integration, automated and scheduled snapshots, and cross-region replication. These features enhance the ease of management and reliability of our database solutions.

They could provide better integration for the solution with Microsoft products. Although this may be challenging due to competitive interests, enhanced integration could significantly benefit users working with mixed technology environments.

I have worked with Amazon RDS for approximately 12 to 18 months.

I rate the product's stability as a nine out of ten. It has proven to be reliable in maintaining performance and uptime.

I rate the product scalability as a seven out of ten. It handles growth well, but there are constraints to consider depending on the scale of the deployment.

I resolved issues through Amazon’s documentation and user forums, finding the available resources helpful for troubleshooting.

The initial setup is straightforward if Amazon’s guidance is followed. It is generally simple but requires careful attention to documentation to ensure a smooth process.

Deployment was carried out in-house. Typically, only one person with the required skills in virtualization, Linux, and programming environments like Bash is needed for implementation.

I would rate the pricing between six and seven. The cost is manageable because you can see the expense associated with each instance and utilize tools for tagging and cost control. However, a common issue is the tendency to forget about running instances no longer needed, which can lead to unexpected charges.

We evaluated other options such as Azure SQL Database and Google Cloud SQL before selecting Amazon RDS.

I rate Amazon RDS a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for data storage.

It handles large-scale data migrations perfectly. Amazon RDS's performance is quite good. Charges are incurred after you utilize the service, which can lead to high expenses, especially for those who do not have a strategic approach. If you use the service without a clear plan, costs can quickly increase. Additionally, you must meet requirements such as GDPR and HIPAA compliance, which can add to the costs. It would be helpful if Amazon could provide a more predictable pricing strategy.

If Amazon RDS can be provided as a service platform, it would be beneficial for years. Instead of focusing on infrastructure, they can assist backend engineers and those with varying technical expertise in utilizing it effectively.

I have been using Amazon RDS for quite some time.

The support is quite good.

The initial setup is complex. When using Amazon RDS, you must address compliance issues and determine the types of data you want to store, whether for long-term or short-term needs, and how to retrieve that data if necessary. Amazon RDS is user-friendly for both usage and data retrieval.

You pay as per use. It depends on how you use it. It will be hard to specify, but it depends on your usage.

AWS is not for everyone. My company is collaborating with someone who is an AWS Select Partner. I am working towards becoming an AWS Select Partner myself. I have been assisting in ensuring compliance with government data storage requirements. We utilize the platform or tool to comply with government requirements.

Microsoft solutions may be easier to use than AWS in some respects, but you still need a certain technical ability to use Amazon RDS easily. However, the features available are quite robust as long as you understand them. Sometimes, you will need to refer to the documentation. It's also important to check the requirements and know the associated costs. If using it, ensure you are fully informed about these aspects.

I advise people to ensure that they start it in terms of understanding their cost because it is one product that Amazon, as a whole, then compromises value. They ensure that they give you what you expect, but they also expect you to understand their value because you need to pay the price. They value the product tool because it's one of their best products. Amazon is one of the best products we have in the world in terms of performance and various tools they have. If you don't wanna compromise quality, just go for tools such as RDS.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine-point five out of ten.

We have a SaaS-based application. We use the RDS version of SQL Server because it is self-managed by AWS in terms of patch management, SQL server patch management, and OS patch management.

Amazon RDS handles database backup mechanisms and patch management. Since the solution handles OS and database-level patches, we need not worry about security breaches. Amazon RDS has some metrics to show with respect to SQL performance or query running.

I have seen some limitations in Amazon RDS when I try to use SSIS in an RDS world. I need an Active Directory enabled from a security perspective, which was a little painful and cost me extra. There are some advanced monitoring queries that we cannot execute because Amazon doesn't give admin privileges to the end users. We can create another supervisor, but we don't have real admin privileges.

There are some limitations regarding some of the queries and the tools. We tried data replication, and a few features available in an enterprise SQL Server are disabled in the RDS world. We need to upgrade it to an enterprise version. Amazon RDS should improve its metrics a little more.

I have been using Amazon RDS for more than ten years.

Amazon RDS is a very stable solution.

Since it is a SaaS-based application, about 30 to 40 developers are working with Amazon RDS.

We have mostly found the answers to our issues in their forums, but I didn't get a chance to talk to the solution's technical support.

The initial setup of the solution can be done very easily with the click of a button.

Amazon RDS is not a very expensive solution.

Initially, we had an EC2 instance with SQL Server license installed. We had some challenges regarding patch management and backups, and we decided to move to Amazon RDS.

Although Amazon RDS is not a very expensive solution, I would not recommend it for extremely cost-conscious people. Amazon RDS is not a very expensive solution. Amazon RDS is the best solution if you need to quickly turn around an application or product. Amazon RDS is worth the money for me. It is quite easy for a beginner to learn to use Amazon RDS for the first time.

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

I use it for testing purposes only. My role involves managing RDS services for customers, ensuring they meet their specific requirements.

Relational databases excel in extensive normalization, eliminating data redundancy and efficiently structuring tables which leads to a clear and efficient relationship between tables using primary keys. Relational databases, such as MySQL, offer a streamlined approach to data retrieval, unlike non-relational databases that often require complex ID referencing. Additionally, relational databases have a more compact footprint, making them more manageable, especially in scenarios with significant daily data processing.

One notable improvement that could enhance the database management experience, particularly during migration scenarios, is the accessibility of the root user. Currently, challenges arise when attempting continuous migration or transferring data between cloud platforms like AWS RDS and GCP Cloud. Another potential improvement suggestion is reconsidering the policy of locking down root user access entirely. Instead, it could be beneficial to allow access to higher-level administrators or designated personnel within a company. This approach ensures that not everyone has access to the root user. Still, at least those with administrative roles can perform essential tasks such as making changes or taking a database dump for on-premise storage.

I have been using it for six months now.

When faced with issues, my approach has been to search for solutions on Google or watch relevant videos on YouTube. Most of the time, I rely on online resources to address errors or challenges that may arise during my usage.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The cost is a critical factor, especially if you are not inclined to spend a significant amount, Amazon is the preferable choice. The substantial initial credit and cost-effectiveness make Amazon an attractive option.

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.

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.

We migrate to Amazon RDS instead of traditional OLTP databases. We experience the ease of management and reduced operational expenses. 

The solution has unique features like backup and recovery, and snapshots. It upgrades automatically. The solution offers easy analytics concerning performance metrics. Its reliability and scalability are very good. The tool's most valuable features are disaster recovery, high availability and scalability. 

Amazon RDS needs to have an overall dashboard where I can view all the tables in the form of pie charts and Gantt charts. The deployment is complex, and we would like to see automated scripts. It needs to incorporate performance insights. 

I have been using the solution since 2016. 

The solution's scalability is good. 

The solution's customer support is satisfactory. 

Amazon RDS' deployment is complex. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

The solution's price is good. 

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. 

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. 

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.

I use the solution in my company as a database.

I use the solution for database setup and management, along with other factors like HA, durability, security, performance, automated backup, and maintenance.

Amazon RDS serves as a managed database service that supports database engines, improving areas involving MySQL cycle and PostgreSQL. The tool obviously handles the working of the database as a provider of managed services. The product also offers backup and recovery.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon RDS for less than a year. I am a user of the tool.

Around 4,000 people in my company use the product.

If I face any problems with the product, I contact the solution's support team. I look online to see if I can resolve the problem by myself, and if I don't get any answers to my issues, then I contact the product's support team. The product's support team is very good.

I use AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM).

The product's installation phase is easy.

The product is expensive. If Cisco needs two servers, Amazon uses four.

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.