Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) offers sql server version compatibility for earlier versions, but azure provides only for the latest version. Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) offers higher storage for each database instance. I think Amazon Relational Database …
Earlier we were using the Azure Ecosystem but we faced some issues in DevOps side so we decided to migrate towards some other reliable infra so we migrated all our engines, RDS and other services to Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) and from that time we are using this. …
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) is an excellent option for those using AWS already, and provides a scalable, performant, database engine. Unlike Azure SQL Server it has a limit on the number of databases you can hold. However, if you're already in the AWS ecosystem it …
Amazon RDS is more resilient and accepted industry wide when compared to its peers. Also, as we have other services on AWS so it would be easier to integrate with other services like ECS if we go with Amazon RDS. Furthermore, it would be more cost effective if we go with Amazon …
We needed to use PostgreSQL due to it being the database engine that our application vendor uses. Once we were constrained on the database engine choice then Microsoft products (eg. SQL Server), whether on premise or in the cloud, were not appropriate. Therefore the only …
we could use Azure SQL for our project but as our other parts of the solutions existed on AWS, it was a better choice to have AWS RDS or else traffic exiting AWS would have taken a lot of cloud changes. Microsoft SQL Server requires license, either core-based or full license …
In my opinion, Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) has provided better services in terms of Scalability and data Security as compared to its competitor. It helped us to manage our data using RDS server more efficiently and effectively. The high Availability helped us to …
Cloud Engineer - IT Emerging Talent Rotational Program
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Whether using AWS, GCP, or Azure, you get the most value out of using applications from the same suite. Since my organization is AWS first, I am using RDS because it provides the most value for us using it with the other AWS offerings
We try to use Azure Databases, but we encountered issues of combining services between AWS and Azure, so this is the main reason we decided to move with Amazon RDS. I can say that between services they're quite alike but it all depends what cloud provider you use for the other …
As a POC, we had worked with Azure and GCP's databases as well. One problem with Azure is that it seems slow in supporting new versions of MySQL. With GCP Cloud SQL, the security configuration for the database was not as intuitive as in AWS. The UI in both Azure and GCP was …
I selected AWS RDS over Azure because of the [number] of products AWS has that work together. The cost for RDS was cheaper than Azure's SQL also. I use Azure for MSSQL workloads and AWS for MySQL workloads. Probably the main reason was we wanted to use S3 and Azure doesn't have …
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) is very well integrated with AWS services like CloudWatch, Lambda, IAM, Secrets Manager, S3, etc. It is AWS managed database service. It provides a serverless version using Aurora with auto-scaling features. Its features like …
We mainly used RDS because our infrastructure was already up and running on AWS so the networking between the systems was quite easy to set up and manage. For our Azure infrastructure, we used their SQL database option instead for the same reasons. If AWS made it easier to use …
Our other application components are all hosted within Amazon's systems already, and the tight coupling of RDS with the security groups and virtual private cloud offerings made locking down privacy and security much easier than integrating with an outside provider. The deeper …
There really isn't a comparable service. Azure was surprisingly complicated to set up and crashed at odd points during a POC without much help. We looked at Rackspace to check it out, but as most of our infrastructure is in AWS, any benefit to Rackspace's offerings were …
Azure and AWS RDS are very similar, both have similar capabilities and functions. When you need it, the aspect of only being charged for a running instance is very nice.
Amazon Relational Database Service is the other obvious competitor. We were already in Azure, so it's not a serious contender for our business due to that bias already, but I do personally find the marketing and documentation of RDS more intimidating to sort through.
Amazon's RDS offering is actually very good and is used in other parts of the company, we just have a lot of Azure experience so wanted to leverage that.
The simplicity and great features and good support of Microsoft as well as the more reasonable flexible price than other competitors is one of the important reasons for choosing it.
It is very easy to setup SQL database on Azure. one can always refer to their documentation for best practices. It is highly available and scalable. It is cheaper than its alternatives and provide better performance than others. As we are using many other services of Azure for …
As we were early adopters with Azure and landed on the Azure PaaS (Platform as a Service), it made sense to use databases that were on the same platform as the application to save on costs. Also, we were impressed with the simplicity of Azure SQL. From a management perspective …
Amazon Relational Database Service is a perfect fit for everyone who is seeking for an high-performance cloud-based database service. No matter if Postgres, Oracle, or any other type of relational database. Amazon RDS is our first choice for any kind of database requirement in the cloud. Especially I like the scalability.
Your upcoming app can be built faster on a fully managed SQL database and can be moved into Azure with a few to no application code changes. Flexible and responsive server less computing and Hyperscale storage can cope with your changing requirements and one of the main benefits is the reduction in costs, which is noticeable.
Automated Database Management: We use it for streamlining routine tasks like software patching and database backups.
Scalability on Demand: we use it to handle traffic spikes, scaling both vertically and horizontally.
Database Engine Compatibility: It works amazingly with multiple database engines used by different departments within our organization including MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle.
Monitoring: It covers our extensive monitoring and logging, and also has great compatibility with Amazon CloudWatch
Maintenance is always an issue, so using a cloud solution saves a lot of trouble.
On premise solutions always suffer from fragmented implementations here and there, where several "dba's" keep track of security and maintenance. With a cloud database it's much easier to keep a central overview.
Security options in SQL database are next level... data masking, hiding sensitive data where always neglected on premise, whereas you'll get this automatically in the cloud.
It is a little difficult to configure and connect to an RDS instance. The integration with ECS can be made more seamless.
Exploring features within RDS is not very easy and intuitive. Either a human friendly documentation should be added or the User Interface be made intuitive so that people can explore and find features on their own.
There should be tools to analyze cost and minimize it according to the usage.
One needs to be aware that some T-SQL features are simply not available.
The programmatic access to server, trace flags, hardware from within Azure SQL Database is taken away (for a good reason).
No SQL Agent so your jobs need to be orchestrated differently.
The maximum concurrent logins maybe an unexpected problem.
Sudden disconnects.
The developers and admin must study the capacity and tier usage limits https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-subscription-service-limits otherwise some errors or even transaction aborts never seen before can occur.
Only one Latin Collation choice.
There is no way to debug T-SQL ( a big drawback in my point of view).
We do renew our use of Amazon Relational Database Service. We don't have any problems faced with RDS in place. RDS has taken away lot of overhead of hosting database, managing the database and keeping a team just to manage database. Even the backup, security and recovery another overhead that has been taken away by RDS. So, we will keep on using RDS.
I've been using AWS Relational Database Services in several projects in different environments and from the AWS products, maybe this one together to EC2 are my favourite. They deliver what they promise. Reliable, fast, easy and with a fair price (in comparison to commercial products which have obscure license agreements).
I have only had good experiences in working with AWS support. I will admit that my experience comes from the benefit of having a premium tier of support but even working with free-tier accounts I have not had problems getting help with AWS products when needed. And most often, the docs do a pretty good job of explaining how to operate a service so a quick spin through the docs has been useful in solving problems.
We give the support a high rating simply because every time we've had issues or questions, representatives were in contact with us quickly. Without fail, our issues/questions were handled in a timely matter. That kind of response is integral when client data integrity and availability is in question. There is also a wealth of documentation for resolving issues on your own.
In a few words, we are just to confortable working with oracle and sql server. Using RDS add another layer of distributed database in order to backup everything we have in case of a disaster and also complies with authorities locally and internacionally. All database we use, are local in custom servers that we maintain, but we agree to expand this.
We moved away from Oracle and NoSQL because we had been so reliant on them for the last 25 years, the pricing was too much and we were looking for a way to cut the cord. Snowflake is just too up in the air, feels like it is soon to be just another line item to add to your Azure subscription. Azure was just priced right, easy to migrate to and plenty of resources to hire to support/maintain it. Very easy to learn, too.
RDS is costly and thus small business should avoid it as it might not be worthful (in ROI perspective)
Downtime is very low and there are automated backups thus we dont have to worry much about technical stuff and can focus more on marketing and sales
Due to various automated features such as automated backup etc we dont need a huge technical team thus reducing the cost of maintaining a huge technical team ,