Amazon RDS Reviews

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.

We use Amazon RDS to store DB for the database.

Amazon RDS is easy to manage, and it has customizable performance, high availability, and duality. Migration is also very flexible with the solution.

The solution's version upgrade and performance could be improved.

I have used Amazon RDS for three years.

I rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

We have seen a return on investment with Amazon RDS.

Amazon RDS is cheaper compared to other tools.

Overall, I rate Amazon RDS 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.

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.

I use mostly the Postgres incarnation of Amazon RDS. Basically, Amazon RDS is a cheap database that is totally self-contained and self-managed, and that is its good part. There is also the downfall associated with the tool since you don't have you don't have root privileges or super-user privileges on Amazon RDS, so there are certain things you cannot do. Sometimes, when I really needed a database that I could have absolute control over, I used to spin AWS VMs and EC2 machines and load Postgres on that machine so that I could become a super-user. Amazon RDS is very useful for quick and dirty or for very established solutions where you don't have to develop or change a lot. Basically, you can you can load your data into Amazon RDS. In my data analytics space, I see Amazon RDS as an ancillary product to Redshift, which is the real workhorse in terms of big data, data warehousing, and analytics.

I don't manage my database with Amazon RDS. AWS manages Amazon RDS. Sometimes, it is enough, and I don't need to do low-level stuff, and I can use Amazon RDS. Suppose I really need to tweak and do low-level stuff, low-level in the sense of being very close to the system, and I need super-user privileges. In that case, Amazon RDS is out of the picture because AWS doesn't allow you to have super-user privileges in Amazon RDS. The use case for me with Amazon RDS is a cheap and dirty database that I can use when I don't need to do a lot of tweaking. When I need tweaking, I create my own instance of the Postgres, and I can become a super-user and do whatever I like.

As a customer of Amazon RDS, you don't have super-user privileges, and that is the only drawback where improvements are required.

I never tested the scalability of the product. I was scaling it up to two, three, and four gigabytes, and it was fine. I don't know how it fares when we are loading hundreds of gigabytes of terabytes of data. Redshift can manage huge amounts of data, but I don't know about Amazon RDS. I suspect Amazon RDS can handle huge amounts of data because Postgres is very capable of doing so. Amazon RDS in AWS is simply an umbrella. Underneath Amazon RDS, you can choose to implement MySQL or other databases. The implementation I always chose was Postgres.

I have been using Amazon RDS since 2017. My company has a partnership with Amazon.

AWS is a stable environment. Postgres is a very stable database. AWS implementation of Postgres, as far as I know, is very reliable. I never had any issues.

I never tested the scalability of Amazon RDS since it was, for me, a stepping stone toward having real analytics in Redshift. Basically, Amazon RDS was just a collector. I was collecting structured data into Amazon RDS, or if the data was unstructured, like in emails, I was using software to make sense of the email and then store the content of the email relationally in Amazon RDS. Amazon RDS was just a stepping stone, a part of the pipeline, just in order to collect the data momentarily so that the data could eventually be transferred across to Redshift.

The tool's technical support depends on your service level agreements with Amazon. If you are on the cheap side, obviously, they tend not to attend to your issues immediately, and I can understand that. If you pay a premium support fee, I don't know how Amazon treats you since I was never in a position to pay a premium support fee. Overall, I was never disappointed with the tool's support. I didn't face a lot of issues, so I never tested how good the support was because I have 35 years of experience in managing data. I tend to solve my own issues by myself.

The product's initial setup phase is totally easy. You go to a web page, configure your instance with checkboxes and drop-down list boxes, see what you want, see what your needs are, and what you are prepared to pay, compile a form with ten or fifteen fields, click on submit, and Amazon RDS is created for you.

Going from on-premise and hybrid into a complete Amazon RDS solution obviously frees up the need for DBAs. The fact that AWS manages everything for you means you don't need a lot of time and resources to manage the database. So you can cut your yearly salary for the DBAs in your company. You need to consider all the cloud costs as well. I believe it is cheaper to go with Amazon RDS rather than hosting Postgres instances in-house or on-premise. I know that AWS is becoming expensive. I really don't know where the breakeven point is between having your own Postgres instance that you manage yourself outside the cloud. Basically, there are three options. You manage your Postgres on-premise. You use an EC2 VM in AWS, and you install Postgres on it. You have the benefits of AWS scalability and security, but you still have your control, and you become a super-user on the database. The third option is to go with Amazon RDS, after which you lose control of your database, but you don't worry about managing redundancy and creating high-availability solutions because everything is done for you. I believe it is the best feature of RDS, which is total uptime guaranteed by AWS. You don't need to think about how to implement, test, and manage a high availability redundancy kind of solution, as everything is included in the package.

I don't know if the solution is cheap or expensive in comparison with competitors since AWS is the only cloud provider I tried so far. I connected some Azure Blob Storage to the instance running the Redshift instance. AWS is becoming pretty expensive because cheap or absolutely free services have become paid services. Amazon RDS is not an expensive product, but Amazon's ecosystem is becoming increasingly expensive.

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.

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.