Amazon RDS Reviews

Amazon RDS is a good database.

Amazon RDS is very easy to use.

Amazon RDS should have a more user-friendly graphical user interface and include better database management options.

I have been using Amazon RDS for three years.

Amazon RDS is a stable solution.

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

Around 100 people are using Amazon RDS in our organization.

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

Before Amazon RDS, I used Oracle and SQL Server. I switched to Amazon RDS to use the cloud.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

The solution was deployed through a consultant, and it took a few minutes to deploy it.

The solution's license was included in the payment of the cloud. On a scale from one to ten, where ten is the most expensive, and one is the cheapest, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Amazon RDS is a cloud based solution.

I recommend Amazon RDS to other users. I advise users to enforce the DBA to be part of any database cloud. Sometimes, people think managing the database is easy because the cloud is easy. However, that is not always the case.

Overall, I rate Amazon RDS 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.

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 encrypt our data.

Encryption is the most valuable feature.

To save costs, I need to shut down my server. However, Amazon has a policy of automatically restarting the server every seven days. This means that I have to repeatedly shut down the server to avoid incurring extra expenses.

I have been using the solution for almost eight years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good and easy to use. The support will answer our questions even if the issue is not related to their service.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes around ten minutes.

We help our customers implement the solution in-house.

The price of Amazon RDS is expensive. We pay for the monitoring and the uploading.

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.

Our primary use case for this solution is relational data services.

The Amazon RDS features I found most valuable are snapshots and automatic backups.

In the next release, it would be great to see RDS provide connection pooling out of the box.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. It has never crashed on us.

My impression is that Amazon RDS is quite a scalable solution. If there are any issues, it's usually on the application side of things.

My impression is that deployment is quite straightforward. It took just one person in our company to deploy it.

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.

The dashboard and performance are the most valuable features of Amazon RDS.

In terms of what needs to be improved, I am unable to provide appropriate feedback because we are still familiarizing ourselves with the solution. 

Some of the documents that I have seen also state that Amazon previously supported MS SQL, which is great, but we are going into the database areas of PostgreSQL and MySQL. 

With my limited experience, I have noticed that documentation management could be improved. It could be better.

I have been working with Amazon RDS for three months.

We are using the latest version.

Amazon RDS is stable. I have not had any issues with the stability of this solution.

We are just now experimenting with scalability.

We have two engineers using this solution in our organization.

We are not receiving direct support from them, AWS. But from the previous company, we got one of the API services for this one, which was fine. But because of the account, we stopped the service, taking the service. We are still maintaining the solution on our end.

I would rate the technical support a three or four out of five.

EC2 and Lambda functions are two of Amazon's other services. 

There is another service that I have used. I have used Amazon services.

Our team and CTO are also looking into it. They were suggesting that Amazon was the best.

The initial setup was easy for me. In the beginning, I began with research and development. I didn't have any issues, it comes naturally to me.

I deployed this solution myself.

It took me, two or three hours to complete because I had to go through the documentation and check those areas.

I am not aware of the licensing costs.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon RDS 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.

When I was working for at my previous organization, we wanted to bring stability to all our MySQL databases. As a DBA, at first, it was scary as I thought I would be out of a job, however, the RDS managed DB allowed me to focus more on optimization and less on administration. (both hardware and software). 

When I was working at another organization we had a large amount of MySQL on-prem to manage. It required lots of time to set them up, monitoring, and maintain them. RDS really allowed us to remove all the painful administration parts. 

Less time was spent maintaining MySQL. Having to configure each server and spinning up a new MySQL in RDS takes 10 to 15min. It's a huge time-saving in maintenance. 

By using RDS, AWS takes care of the maintenance of the hardware and software updates. Being able to scale quickly or downsize with no impact is also great.

All of your databases are nicely organized under 1 interface; you have quick access to some monitors and Cloudwatch can be used to set up alerts based on thresholds and notify you. 

Today, with Terraform, you can automate the full process of creating RDS servers, deprecating them, changing their size, adding a replica, etc.

Create Replicas. Being able to create a replica with just a few clicks is great. Setting replication before would require backup, restore, and synching replication. 

Backups. The fact that you can take a snapshot of the database without impacting the server is great. In comparison, large backups could lock tables or take too long. Alternatively, you would have to use tools such as xtraDB backup. That requires lots of code and maintenance.

Change Size. Being able to change the size of an RDS MySQL instance is amazing. There's no need to provision new machines, setup replication, etc. It's all done for you.

The solution needs RDS Mysql support for both MySQL 8 and MariaDB. 

The Performance Monitor they have is a little clanky, at least in regards to the UI. 

I wish they had designed a better MySQL Monitoring solution. I personally like SolarWinds DPA.

The performance is not always as good as MySQL running on its own EC2 instance. I have done some benchmarks before between EC2 instances and RDS and EC2 were better.

Being unable to select Out-file is annoying. They do support select Out-files into S3 but only on Aurora. It would be nice if they had implemented that feature in RDS MySQL.

I've been using AWS RDS for more than 8 years. 

MySQL RDS is very stable. I cannot say that running MySQL on-premise or on EC2 instances is less stable than RDS MySQL. However, when there are hardware issues, if you have RDS MySQL standby "on", you'll appreciate the fail-over solution. 

MySQL RDS can scale very well. I have been using it in critical Production services.

AWS Customer Support is pretty good. Their response time is usually adequate. They offer different support options and provide different support media (for example, phone, web, and email).

I was using MySQL on-prem. I decided to switch due to the amount of time required to maintain on-premises databases.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward. There is some tuning that needs to be done with RDS. The default settings are not always adequate.

We handled the implementation in-house.

Make sure you provision your MySQL RDS properly. Don't over or under-provision. 

Perform some benchmarks before migrating. Migrating to a new system is costly. You don't want to have your data migrated only to realize it performs much worse than before.

I did not evaluate other options. I did evaluate Aurora, however, for the project requirements, it was not needed.

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.

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 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.