Amazon RDS Reviews

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.

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. 

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.

I work with Amazon RDS for our credit card business operations.

Amazon RDS fulfills PCI requirements, which is a valuable feature for us.

Amazon cannot guarantee the stability of some extensions, and there is a need for different extensions to meet PCI requirements.

I have been working with Amazon RDS for five years.

I would rate the stability of Amazon RDS as the best on a scale from one to ten.

The scalability is the best, and I have no issues with the ability to scale.

I rely on reading documentation to manage the database. The documentation is quite good.

Positive

I have used both Amazon RDS and Oracle, and I prefer Amazon. I prefer Amazon over Oracle as Amazon offers better features for our needs.

The initial setup process is simple.

I rate the price for Amazon as eight on a scale from one to ten. It's a reasonably high price for us.

Overall, I would rate Amazon RDS an eight out of ten. I would recommend Amazon RDS to other users.

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 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.

We use the solution to migrate products from on-premises to AWS environment.

The solution's most valuable feature is the provisioning of products. We don't have to worry about storage approval or hardware availability using this feature. It is the most accessible feature in RDS.

They should add a feature for manual SQL patching in RDS. Also, the auto-patching features have their limitations. We can't set a particular day or date of the month for auto-maintenance.

We have been using the solution for two years.

I have never come across any issues regarding the solution's stability. The database uptime works fine.

Scalability is one of the solution's best features.

The solution's customer service is excellent.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's pricing needs improvement. I rate it as a six.

If they have to segregate the databases into different RDS databases, it will cost almost the same or even more than any on-premises migration.

I rate the solution as an eight because it quickly provisions the resources. It covers all the security and governance parameters as well.