Amazon RDS Reviews

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 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 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 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.

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 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. 

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 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. 

I use the solution to store the data of the applications we run on AWS Lambda.

The solution is scalable and can be configured with AWS Secrets Manager. So our password is secure. Also, due to Amazon RDS Multi-AZ, other nodes are available for us if we face a problem in a particular zone. This functionality makes the solution resilient.

If we do not keep track of our costs, we might face some problems.

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

The solution is quite stable. We haven't seen any issues in the last three years. Since we are using Amazon RDS Multi-AZ, other nodes are available on the machine, even if the solution is down. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. Multiple teams in our organization are using the solution.

We get a timely response from the support team when we raise issues.

The initial setup is quite easy. If we know the configuration, we can run the system, and our database will be ready in 10 to 15 minutes.

If we use the product wisely, we can optimize the cost. The cost depends on the kind of instance we use.

The solution helps us to provide a serverless database. There are multiple servers available in case someone has a high workload. We must understand whether our application is a read-heavy application or a write-heavy application. Accordingly, we must choose the right instance. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.