Choosing RDS was the best strategic decision we made. We saved a lot of time to focus on our company's growth instead of dealing with operations.

We have been using AWS RDS with MySQL since 2015. It is the best option we encountered in the market to set up, operate and scale a relational database in the cloud. Management Console is really easy to use. You can create, restore and scale any size of database in a matter of minutes. You should however be familiar with the technical term AWS uses. Be careful when you choose between General Purpose and Provisioned IOPS types. Multi-AZ feature is a life saver if you have a database that cannot tolerate any downtime. Point in time recovery saved us a lot. Also RDS takes automatic backups regularly. You should also try Amazon Aurora which is an engine compatible with MySQL and PostgreSQL. AWS built Aurora for itself and the underlying technology is mind blowing.

You should be careful with the price of Amazon RDS and keep an eye on CloudWatch and Trusted Advisor. It gets expensive depending on usage but still it is worth not to struggle with operational problems.

Overall, Amazon RDS has been very useful to us. It has saved us tremendous amounts of time just in the provisioning, scaling, and maintenance activities alone.

I like how easy it is to scale RDS up and down alongside its monitoring features which can be conveniently accessed via AWS console.

The burst balance limit for the underlying EBS disk gave us lots of problems. I wish this feature was more user-friendly.

Amazon RDS is really simple and lightweight. It is easy to use and scale up in the cloud. Easy to setup.

I have not used Amazon Relational Database extensively, so I did not find any drawbacks forAmazon Relational Database.

My company need a simple and fast scalable solution for managing MySQL databases therefore we chose RDS. Prior to RDS we were managing DB clusters installed on VMs on Hyper Visors, and it was a cumbersome job. Though switching to RDS does make our life easy but RDS is not a cheap solution though.

Easily Scalable as per need. AWS manage you infrastructure completely. Fast Disaster recovery if planned the architecture correctly. Multi AZ deployment and Read replica supported. Supported various DB services like MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server and Postgres. Backup procedure is very easy.

Cost on higher side. Lack of control on your DB instance, though it's good but at times you need some tweaking todo.

We use RDS with PostgreSQL and MySQL as our backend database for our Application hosted in AWS, they are located in a private VPC and only allow access from our backend subnet.

RDS allows us easy to create and manage a relational database for our Application hosted in AWS. It supports many different instance type, engine and scale option to select. RDS works well with VPC to keep our database private and only allow to access from specify sources. It has a lot of monitor metrics such as CPU utilization, free storage, freeable memory and read/write latency and well notification system to keep track of our database. Excellent backup, snapshot and restore support by AWS

Manage RDS's parameter is quite complex since it does not have good UI support. It lacks support tool to run SQL command directly from AWS console

Personally I am very satisfied by this solution as it makes Database hosting totally painless. Also, Read-Replica and Multi-AZ features, makes it very hard to have a downtime on your side. If you're searching for an HA solution for your Database, consider Amazon RDS.

Amazon RDS is a very good product if you need a Database solution in your software architecture. Scaling and ensure performance without bottlenecks is definitely a plus value that Amazon RDS offers. Easier to integrate across other AWS products, but also on standalone software through DNS names and port, you can easily spawn a Database in a couple of clicks. Amazon RDS offers also Read-Replicas and Multi-AZ totally transparent to you, which makes it kind of unique in database hosting.

Price: everybody is well aware of how much AWS costs in the long run. Amazon RDS solution makes no difference, but if you are well aware of the costs, then this shouldn't stop you from trying and using it.

Amazon Relational Database allows us to encrypt your data using the Amazon Web Key Management. We manage our databases on Amazon Virtual Private which isolate the service and keep running without trouble. Monitoring of AWS RDS with Amazon CloudWatch is easy and describes details in metrics with no extra cost. Amazon Aurora is one of the cost efficient RDS.

Amazon Relational Database Service is one of the best product of AWS. The best thing in it is easy to deploy,patch,backup,security and administrate . The distributed architecture provide render the high scalability feature in it. The hardware upgrade is also easy and less time consuming with AWS as it comes with the embed features of it. After switching to the AWS RDS there is a less administration activities needed on managing the databases. Best feature in it is, if you are new to the RDS it also provides the best practices and recommendations. Managing the database snapshot with the help of Amazon S3 is also very convenient.

Amazon Relational Databases management is easy but it's little tricky also as if you mess up the security group setting to vast, it's not an easy task to solve the puzzle. Best practices is to keep the security group setting simple and as per recommendation by AWS.

We're using Amazon RDS PostgreSQL. Our database use case is pretty trivial, so we're entirely satisfied with RDS experience. Database is fast and efficient, very easy to scale by changing instance types, adding more disk I/O, or spinning up read replicas. Backups do not have significant performance penalty. With some careful planning it is very easy to migrate between different software versions. Reserved instances make it a very compelling offering.

It gets expensive, but if you consider the fact that you don't need to deal with many daily operational issue, it's well worth the price. You can only add storage capacity (no storage downsizing possible without a complex migration process).

Amazon has worked hard to democratises databases, it's easy to set up a variety of different type of databases: SQL, Oracle, MySQL etc and perform things that typically have been a little more complicated with just a few clicks for example snapshots and database mirrors for you analytical platform. Choose the region in which you're seeking to operate with just a few clicks, and it's pretty easy to kick off auto-scaling etc.

You need to be careful with billing surprises, make sure that you're familiar with Cloudwatch before you start playing with RDS. Keep an eye on how much it's costing you. Amazon may be elastic, but your budget probably lacks the same amount of elasticity.

RDS is a highly scalable database and it can scale up or down depending on the resource and workloads it has and it works smoothly even for high data volumes and increased traffic. It automatically backs up data and we can restore our data even if we lost it. This is a highly available db because it automatically stores data in another availability zone and if a failure happens, then the primary database will be replaced with that replica.

With our application requirement, we have to choose the supported db engine. That db engine running inside RDS has some limitations other than running it in our machine. So that is the drawback I see.

Since we start using RDS it saves us a lot of time. You can start with a small instance and very easily grow to a larger instance and a multi AZ (High available) setup. No need to worry about disk space anymore for backups or snapshots. Amazon doesn't run out of space. You can setup automated backup with a retention of 35 days max but if you need to keep backups longer you can create manual snapshots and keep them forever.

- Very easy to setup - Creating database environments including HA in minutes - Creating a HA environment without having to know anything about database replication - Upgrading the DB engine with a click of a mouse - Very ease to create backups (and setup automated snapshots) - Easy to restore - Can be managed via the weg GUI but also via the very powerful AWS CLI - No need to manage an Operating system - Changing instanced types if you need more or less CPU/memory. - Dynamically change the storage - Performance is very good

- On Aurora the disk spaces grows automatically when the database grows. But when deleting lots of data its not possible to shrink the file system. - No root access to server (which we never missed since using RDS)

Overall very satisfied. It worked for our use case.

Easy to setup and running. All cloudwatch metrics made available like other AWS services. Ability to take snapshots, scale up horizontally and vertically across environments and depending upon load. We were able to automate our build and deployments using terraform scripts. Automated Backups are stored in S3 so you can retrieve backups when needed. Pay as you go like traditional EC2 metered cost model. You can predict your montly/yearly estimates before hand. It just works! Supports a wide range of DB's - PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL, etc.

Security setup may take time as its controlled by security groups. So it takes time to troubleshoot if you are not able to connect from local or any other remote instance. Pricing may start to increase when you upgrade your instance types and add replication nodes etc.

Managing database servers is an expensive time sink. RDS lets you focus more on the business needs instead of managing servers.

It makes your life way easier by not having to manage a database server. Amazon RDS abstracts all the server stuff away so you just focus on managing the actual database content itself.

The UI is a bit clunky and some of the parameterization options are a bit difficult to use. There used to be a couple of bugs as well but they were fixed thankfully. With the lack of control over the server it can be a bit annoying if something is broken and you can't fix it.

Quick and repeatable deployments, wide range of DB flavors, fully managed and supported by AWS.

AWS provides a fully managed database solution covering a number of DB technologies, so most deployments can utilize this product. MySQL, Postgres, MSSQL, Oracle, MariaDB, are all there, as well as AWS's own Aurora high performance DB. Automated backups, with 5 minute point in time recovery is provided out of the box at no additional cost, as is software patching. If you require high availability spanning multiple data centers, it's there too.

If there is a downside to AWS RDS, it would be that it does not cover every use case. In the MSSQL world, you cannot use SSRS or SSIS on RDS, so would need to look at MSSQL on EC2 instead .

Peace of mind if it's about database administration, backup and availability.

It's fully managed database service with multiple database types available (Amazon Aurora, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, Oracle, and Microsoft SQL Server) - you can chose whatever you like or used to run. It's really easy to migrate from existing database of the same type. RDS is highly available and durable service if you chose to run in multi AZ (multiple availability zone/datacenter) scenario (master/slave replication). Amazon will do all the administration task like upgrades or failover for you. Max database storage size is 16 TB (in most cases) and you pay only for what you use.

It'a a little pricey and not all advance database configuration/administratio options are available if you compare it to on premise deployment.

RDS is without doubts a complex, hard to master system, but the basics are easy enough to kick off a project in very short time. In the long run you get a best in class reliability and performances without comparison.

Setting up a PostgreSQL server can be a daunting task and keeping it secure and protected is even more challenging. A managed database solution solves all this problems and many more. RDS in particular is quite easy to set up (at least in the basics) and it is very fast and reliable.

On the other hand there are a lot (I mean, a LOT) of options and settings, so the service is by no mean intended for causal users. A serious preliminary study of platform's usage is strongly advised.

My old man has a big database of tires, it's huge. And for his stores, he needed to access the data quick enough to give prices or stocks. We first try a local server, which wasn't as fast or as big as we needed. Amazon took the job and did it perfectly.

If you need some data on the cloud for your software, you can totally trust Amazon to do it. Their servers are totally protected and fast enough to give you the info you need. Even high portions of data can go into it without much problem.

The price can go sometimes high if some storage, but it's totally worth it if you need it to be secure and functional at all times.

This is a great way to use a relational DBMS without managing it , it is a great experience using this service

RDS support different DBMS's like mysql, postgres, and also a hybrid Aurora, Taking snapshot and creating a new DB with the snapshots are easy, can also schedule snapshot taking, We can set all the network settings to the datable , like VPC, subnet, security groups etc.. to keep the DB secure, Using Aurora we can also setup a dynamically scaling up DB, which runs on server-less system methodology

I don't have any problems in traditional DBMS's , but have seen some issues with hybrid Aurora, In Aurora, setting up the Copy to S3 future require some additional effort, And auto scaling in aurora should have been configurable, since the default scaling policy is 90% of CPU usage, the system is not responsive for scale down, it never scale down to 0

I use RDS every day across a number of products. It's always been my go-to for a managed database service.

RDS is highly available, easy to scale and extremely customisable. Whether I want to set up a small MySQL database or a PostgreSQL instance to be run at scale, RDS is my first port of call.

RDS can start to get pricey as the instance sizes increase. For most consumers with relatively optimised database queries, this would not be an issue - but for those that have not aligned their applications for efficiency, this could be problematic.

Overall experience using Amazon RDS is good, we are able to store the model logs in Amazon RDS from EC2 instance and same data we are utilising to create the dashboards in Amazon QuickSight.

The best thing about Amazon RDS is, it automatically take backups of the database which increase more reliable systems so basically it supports recovery at that point.

The least liked thing about Amazon RDS is there is no guarantee of hardware performance and also sudo access is to be provided.

If you have a choice of building your own infrastructure for the database server, or choosing RDS, I will suggest , go with RDS. Amazon has made it very easy to create your own database servers. All you have to do is ,log in to aws and choose RDS services and the memory, storage capacity, user access as per your requirements. Also, backup your data in s3 for later use.

Your entire dependency is on Amazon servers, so that could be a con

We had a good experience using the product both for SQL server and PostgreSql. Once we passed initial hurdle of setting it up, we were able to take advantage of all the product had to offer.

Amazon RDS provides all features of a modern RDMS and it takes it further by securing your RDS instance using IAM which improves access and security.The backup feature ensures that replicas of data are maintained in cases of data loss.

One drawback is that it can be quite tricky to fully set up. The docs are easy to follow but you have to dig deeper to set up some feature that one is used to. A good example is setting up your RDS instance to allow connections from public IP addresses.

My overall experience with Amazon RDS has nothing but been amazing with the great customer support that they offer and consideration they provide for minor mistakes performed at our end.

The stability and reliability of this product make it an amazing choice. Also scalability is very easy with RDS and amazon overall because anytime you can select how much memory and storage you want based on the dynamic requirement

Though Amazon RDS is totally worth the money but for a company not so big it can get really problematic to fund for the same. They do have amazing plans if you compromise on the dynamic scalability which is not always possible.

We have a fleet of managed DB instances and we don't have to worry or set up replicas manually.

The managed nature of the hosting takes a lot of workload off of my team, letting us focus on more important things. It's definitely worth it.

Making changes is always a bit scary, especially with respect to reboots. They also take a long time with no clear progress indication.