AWS Database Migration Service Reviews

My company uses AWS Database Migration Service as a small data warehouse.

What I like about AWS Database Migration Service is that it is available on the cloud, and you don't need any admins. If you want the backup then you can store it online directly. With the product in place, users can focus on what they want to do, and there is no need to do a lot of maintenance as there are no complications that arise in the tool. It is a maintenance-free product.

I haven't faced any problems with the product till now. In general, I don't see any complications in the solution.

The names of the services need improvement since AWS doesn't indicate what the function of the product is presently. You need to read a lot to find the service that you want in the product.

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service for three years. I use the solution's latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Around ten people in my company who are data analyst specialists work with the product.

There are no plans to increase the number of uses of the product. My company is currently operating with the maximum number of people required to use the solution.

The technical support of AWS is very helpful.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with VMware. I no longer work with VMware since I want all the products in our company to be connected to a cloud.

The product's initial setup phase was very easy.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

As the product is used for multiple projects, there is no specific time that can be pointed out when it comes to the time required to deploy the product. Initially, my company started off with the product's demo phase, after which we started to use it. In the end, I didn't face any challenges when trying to upgrade the product or create new tables or procedures, as it was very smooth and easy with the tool.

At a global level, the price of the product is very good. For Egypt, the product's prices are high, making it a specific problem in one region and not globally. There are additional payments to be made towards AWS Builder ID and bandwidth. If you compare the output of the product with the prices, cost-wise, it is a nice product.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

The meaning in the name of the services is not indicative of what it does. Okay. It is a challenging task to handle if something is broken. Users have to depend heavily on their AWS partners when it comes to the product. If a partner is good, then the users are happy with the services provided by the product. If the partner doesn't do a good job, then users may face sudden problems, and they may not know how to deal with such issues.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to get our data into Lakehouse with the CDC. So, Change Data Capture is also very important for us. AWS Database Migration Service has an inbuilt functionality for capturing change data.

The identifier of this solution informs us whether it's an insert operation, an update operation, or a delete operation. Since our main data is OLTP, the status of the order can keep changing; it can easily go from payment to successful and resend to cancel. 

This solution is very good at mini-batch processing if a user needs a latency between thirty seconds and two minutes. 

This solution can offer more tweaks where the latency can be brought down to fifteen seconds. DMS is not the go-to choice when it comes to data streaming, and the major reason is the latency issues because it's file-based and not message-based. So if DMS could offer such a solution, it has the potential to replace Kafka as well. DMS is more of a one-click setup in comparison to Kafka. 

I have been using the solution for two months. 

The solution is very stable. We haven't faced any downtimes yet. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We haven't faced any issues with scalability. As it's a background service that is actually replicating our data, DMS does not have an end user; it only turns the data into S3. When we connect to the database, that is when the end user comes into the picture. 

Our previous architecture was based on Debezium and Kafka, where Debezium was being used as a CDC tool. The learning curve for Debezium is much more steep as compared to AWS Database Migration Service. Also, with Debezium, if you are not using any external vendors, then you need to have DMS self-hosted on your own Kubernetes cluster. 

The setup process for this product is quite simple and AWS has provided very good documentation for this purpose. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. I would definitely recommend this product to others. 

All of our infrastructure is on Amazon, so we used AWS Database Migration Service to perform a database migration from one relational database to another within the AWS cloud. The migration was from an Oracle database to PostgreSQL database, and AWS DMS helped us transfer all the tables and other objects from the one database to the other automatically.

If your infrastructure is already on Amazon, it simply makes the most sense to use a tool officially provided by them as an additional service, rather than having to rely on a third-party solution.

On the other hand, if you have a custom infrastructure and you want to migrate to Amazon, it also makes thing much easier to integrate. The way it works is brilliant, and it's based on similar logic to Oracle's GoldenGate migration tool in that you can migrate everything from data tables to schemas from one database to another. So in most situations where you would need to migrate to Amazon, the best way is by using AWS DMS.

One area that AWS DMS can improve on is its conversion of data types. For example, in Oracle, you have a data type called RAW, but in PostgreSQL there is no such thing. Thus, AWS DMS doesn't know what type I want to use when migrating from Oracle to PostgreSQL, and when performing the migration, AWS DMS changed the RAW data type to the byte data type, which isn't what I wanted.

For example, if I wanted to manually transfer the RAW data type in the Oracle database to something else like VARCHAR in the PostgreSQL database, AWS DMS doesn't seem to have this functionality. It would be great if I could change the data type conversions manually instead of automatically.

Another area that has proven difficult for me is the use of AWS Schema Conversion Tool, which is a free, cross-platform app that they offer as part of AWS DMS. I was under the impression that I would first have to use this tool to convert from one database to another, and then use AWS DMS, but when I used it, some of the tasks didn't work correctly. To my surprise, when I skipped using the Schema Conversion Tool and went ahead with the migration with AWS DMS, it automatically transferred everything and it was all correct. So I am not sure what the point of the Schema Conversion Tool is, because the default functionality of AWS DMS seemed to transfer and convert the databases fine without it.

There is also room for improvement from a support perspective. It is sometimes necessary to contact their support team when there is something you don't understand, and when I wrote a support ticket they simply weren't able to help. Yet, when our company contacted the manager of our reseller, they were able to create a meeting room with an Amazon specialist for DMS, and with one call, all our questions were answered. I think their email support team could be much better when compared with their personal support team. 

I have used the solution only once, during a migration which took place over two or three months. 

I only used AWS DMS over the course of about three months, but I could tell that it's not always stable. I think it's fine if you only need to use it for a short time with a one-time migration, but if you intend to use it all the time in, for instance, a staging environment, every day of the month, I wouldn't say that's a good idea. I would only use it for quick migrations.

I have certainly needed the support, especially when I don't understand why something doesn't work. This is often the case when dealing with different types of databases, such as Oracle and PostgreSQL. We also use a lot of other databases, so for us, contacting support is almost inevitable.

Once, when I wrote a support ticket but I didn't get the help I needed, our company wrote to the manager of our reseller who arranged for a meeting with Amazon's personal support. We spoke with an AWS DMS specialist in this meeting and showed him our problem, and with this one call, all our questions were answered.

It's easy to set up when you use Amazon's official documentation, and the first steps are simple. Amazon also has a few practice videos so you can see how it is done.

However, it's not always easy to adapt the documentation according to our own particular applications and databases. For example, if you've never used it before, you will likely need to set aside a minimum of 40 hours for reading and testing.

I implemented it by myself.

The pricing is per hour, though I do not have the exact figures.

If you have specific questions about the service, a personal support team from Amazon is available, but this will bring in additional costs.

Our infrastructure is fully on Amazon, so for us AWS DMS was an obvious choice to perform our migration as it is an additional service that Amazon provides. To those who are thinking of using the same, I would say go ahead and try it. If you come across any problems or have questions, you will most likely need to contact Amazon support, which can give good service, but it's not ideal. The paid support, however, worked well for us.

I would rate AWS Database Migration Service a seven out of ten. 

We're currently moving our whole database from AWS to Oracle. We want to avoid interrupting production systems, so we're using DMS to continuously replicate data from the AWS RDS database to the Oracle database in OCI. Once we're sure all data is consistent, we'll switch over to Oracle and shut down the AWS database.

This should minimize downtime to about 15 minutes, and all our services in AWS then point to the Oracle database.

For our simple requirement of migration, DMS is just a typical AWS RDS with an IPSec tunnel to Oracle. The most valuable features for us are the networking capabilities like VPCs and VPNs.

Currently, we're happy with DMS because it's simple and meets our needs. We're still syncing the data, but once that's done, we'll cut off the AWS database. Compared to Oracle GoldenGate, DMS is definitely easier to use. We haven't encountered any major difficulties.

The cost is a concern. We use DMS because of its simplicity, but the price could definitely be more competitive.

So, in my opinion, some potential areas for improvement are price and possibly supporting Oracle Autonomous Database (ADB) on AWS, as it's a powerful option.

Oracle ADB on AWS would significantly reduce our migration workload. Price and lack of ADB support are the main downsides of DMS for us right now. In fact, about 60% of our monthly AWS costs go towards database services.

We've been using DMS for a while to replicate databases between AWS and Oracle, mainly for backups and test environments.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It took us a while to get it running smoothly. It wasn't entirely straightforward. But once it was set up, it was stable. AWS support was helpful during the initial setup.

We haven't encountered any scalability issues so far. We might need to increase the database size later, but it's not a problem. So, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We actually bumped up our support level for extra coverage, and they've been very helpful. We also have AWS expertise on our team, so there haven't been many difficulties. Overall, the support is good.

The biggest challenge we faced was setting up the IPSec tunnel between the two private networks. It took a while to figure out why they weren't communicating even though the tunnel was up. Luckily, our AWS networking experts managed to fix the routing issue.

Neutral

Currently, we're moving from AWS to Oracle. We're migrating our database, and that's already been taken care of. The issue with AWS has been addressed, and we no longer have any problems with it.

We're new to DMS. We decided to use it about three months ago. That's why we compared DMS with GoldenGate to choose the best option for migrating our database. 

The setup process was simple enough for us because our database is plain and doesn't have many blocks. It's just a typical cloud-based product, like most AWS services.

We use the enterprise and the AWS license, which is a bit expensive. We're consolidating our databases from AWS to Oracle, which we find more cost-effective. So, we're using an autonomous database in Oracle, a feature not offered by AWS.

We've been using AWS for a long time, including for non-Oracle services, and overall, we're very happy. It's much better than GoldenGate, which was a headache for us. 

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

We were using the solution for the migration and replication of data.

AWS Database Migration Service is good for smaller workloads and provides compatibility.

The solution’s scalability and performance could be improved.

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service since it came up.

I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Neutral

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s pricing is reasonable.

AWS Database Migration Service is a cloud-based solution.

Overall, I rate AWS Database Migration Service a six or seven out of ten.

We looked for Oracle to Aurora conversion migrations. This has two parts, one is called the static table schema migrations, which is a one-time snapshot that we just stamp and load. The other is the CDC replications, or real-time streaming replications, heterogeneously from Oracle to Aurora. 

The solution is simple, which is key. 

AWS Database Migration Service is a huge product, and it takes a great amount of effort to reverse engineer what they do on the backend. It would be better if they did more troubleshooting at the moment. Currently, if something goes wrong, you get a message that says one thing that has nothing to do with the RCA, and it could be misleading. You aren't even sure which part was broken.

There is no connectivity to the source database or the target database. Any of those channels could break, and it becomes very hard to troubleshoot. 

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service since 2016.

The solution is stable. Typically, once the solution is up and running, and you don't change your application code, it will keep working. Even if it does break down, it will automatically recover itself and resumes from where it stopped.

The scalability of AWS Database Migration Service depends on how you define the scale. There are two considerations, one is the initial part of ETL replication. The other is the CDC part, which is after the full image replication is done. 

On the full ETL, you can scale. Meaning, even within the table you can do a parallel on the table level, or within the table level. After, you do a soft positioning for each range you want. A DMS would assign a process link up to that range, this speeds up the skip performance for the ETL.

As for the CDC, there are limitations. CDC is typically a single channel or single thread. That is because CDC is time-based and a binary transactional log. To do a parallel, you would have to do a lot of work. In our scenario, I could not use DMS. I had to use the in-house developer to do a catalog version of CDC.

My experience with Amazon's technical support depends on who I get for support. If I'm lucky to get someone with experience, the issue will be resolved right away. If I get an amateur, they will avoid answering any questions and send me tons of documents. 

Most of my questions are eventually fixed or solved. I would rate service and support a seven out of ten overall.

Neutral

In a typical deployment scenario, I set up the lead-only account on the source database. I make sure that I will not write anything to the source database to compromise the integrity of my source database. I have to write to the target database. Then the solution is ready for use.

Deployment of AWS Database Migration Service requires a POC first, then you make sure that everything is working and run it for about three weeks in an on-premise environment. Then you deploy, either manually or through the telephone, to an AWS production environment.

AWS Database Migration Service is very inexpensive. The cost is considerably lower than Agility or Oracle Golden Gate. We do not have a license for the solution. We are charged based on our usage.

We evaluated Oracle Golden Gate. They offer similar features to AWS Database Migration, but they lacked simplicity. With Golden Gate, you have to set up the entire enterprise software stack which requires so many steps.

We also looked into Aurora for replication, version eight. This product offers parallel replications of CDC, which is very useful. 

AWS Database Migration Service is most useful for a company that is trying to do partial applications for a short amount of time until the entire application is cut over from one place to another.

If you are considering AWS Database Migration as a solution for your organization, I recommend you pay attention to your CDC throughput, it is a single showstopper if you misuse it. I try to use it for our current application's traffic, which is about 30 megabytes per second. DMS would not be able to handle that in-house, it would just keep lagging.

Overall, I would rate AWS Database Migration Service a nine out of ten. It is a very useful product.

We are moving everything to the cloud and we need a migration service to migrate our on-premise data warehouse to the cloud and this is what we use AWS Database Migration Service for.

The most valuable feature of AWS Database Migration Service is it catches all the history changes, such as inset, observe, and delete. It tracks everything.

I have been using AWS Database Migration Service for approximately two months.

AWS Database Migration Service is stable.

I rate the stability of AWS Database Migration Service a four out of five.

We have approximately a team of 30 of our intelligence team using the solution. This includes system and database administrators.

I have not needed to use the support from AWS Database Migration Service.

The initial setup can be difficult for beginners in AWS Database Migration Service. You will need the training to complete it.

We still need to maintain our on-premise operation and maintain the service as we migrate to the cloud. We have a team of two to five that are maintaining the solution.

My advice to others is for them to take the training first. If you don't take the training, it's a bit difficult to understand how it works.

I rate AWS Database Migration Service a seven out of ten.

We have taken that as a Platform as a Service. So, how we are running here, we just migrated whatever database instance in the rack was there to AWS. It was an "as-it-is" migration. 

For data, we tried to use SSIS to transfer the data from the patch to AWS.

The main thing why people are going behind AWS is the cost. 

For example, on the current project, I am working with an insurance company. So the basic thing is they want to accomplish whatever add-on services AWS provides, but they don't want to go all in a single step. Plus, they want to see what the platform is. Then they look step by step. So, it is an incremental adoption kind of thing.

So, we are helping and enhancing our knowledge of that.  

As a solution, the better thing is if more platforms come with direct compatibility, like connecting to different data sources. 

The basic problem I faced the most was while transferring and reading data from Excel. So, one time, I found that all the components I had declared in my scripts were able to take it. 

And after some patching happens, it is not able to support that. Again, we need to update the version of Excel. So, it's not like a plug-in type place where you have done the solution and are confident that it will work. So, this is an area of improvement. 

If we look at Microsoft products, most things look or are plug-and-play. For example, if you are using storage as a service, we need to go for CLI commands. So, those types of stuff that's not as easy as using a Microsoft product, like DDoS, that level of easiness is not there.

In the project I am in, we migrated from SQL Server from RAS to AWS recently.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. We had some issues with stability.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is able to scale up and fulfill requirements. 

The only thing weakness is compatibility. Like, once you program and forget it, it's not that type of thing. 

I faced some problems while patching; new things come up, and sometimes old things don't support, causing a bit of a headache for me. 

We have a big-sized company with various clients. 

Experience with customers and support was good. I got a good response. It was not a delayed response, or it was not that I had to go back to the multiple times for the issue. It was not there. 

Overall, I had a good experience with the support.

The initial setup is simple. Not that much complex.

The pricing is neither high nor low. It is value for money. Moreover, the facilities or the add-ons they give are good.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.