MongoDB

Our main use cases for MongoDB Enterprise Advanced involve customer-related data and transactions related data; all the customer-facing data will be there. For the project we are using it in telecom. All the customer-related transaction data, their plans, their telecom plans, their consumption, and all those details will be there.

We are using MongoDB Enterprise Advanced in the telecom domain, and we are using this in the customer-facing area. All the customer-related data both for transactions and point of sales data are stored here.

Advanced security features are helpful; our database access security is done through IAM , which is an AWS  service, and that IAM  is integrated with the security manager with single sign-on process, which is also an AWS  service. It's a combination of all that. This was integrated with MongoDB Enterprise Advanced security perspective; that's how we are taking care of the access-related security.

We do use the in-memory storage engine as part of performance improvement; these are already tuned.

It improves the performance depending on the load. When the database receives numerous requests, it has to perform. Those threshold limits we come to know, and then automatically these memory enhancement advanced features are configured so that during high demand periods, memory automatically increases to cater to the incoming advanced requests and volume of requests.

We are using real-time analytics and monitoring in MongoDB Enterprise Advanced; it is integrated. The existing advanced feature is integrated with our business analytics interface. All the various business intelligence reports are generated from that.

The integration between data warehouse could be improved. Nowadays, a lot of data is getting generated, so certain ETL flexible scripts with backend database integrations would be an improvement I could see. I will not be able to clearly say there is currently a deficiency there.

All our DBs are integrated with a backend data warehouse, not necessarily AWS. When third-party data warehouses are integrated, we are seeing some ETL job performance issues. It is a one-off scenario so we have not thoroughly done any troubleshooting on that. It could be platform or third-party related issue. From the AWS standpoint, if robust integration and data warehouse integration specific tools are added in the advanced suite, that would definitely be helpful.

I have been working with MongoDB Enterprise Advanced for almost more than three to four years.

It's pretty much stable; we have not faced any major challenges or difficulties with MongoDB Enterprise Advanced. It is basically transactional from the platform standpoint. Mostly from the product heavy search during those times, which presents capacity planning challenges only, but from the platform standpoint, we have not observed any specific technical issues.

It's pretty much stable; I haven't received any complaints regarding stability.

MongoDB Enterprise Advanced is easy to scale.

We did contact technical support for MongoDB Enterprise Advanced but it goes to a central team. We have received fairly good support whenever we reached out to the technical teams; they were prompt. Once in a while there was a bit of a delay in response but that depends on the technical issue. Overall, we are satisfied with the support.

Positive

For MongoDB Enterprise Advanced, the initial setup is straightforward; it is not too complex. It is comfortable to implement.

I would say we see value in money and return on investment with MongoDB Enterprise Advanced.

For a small company, the cost of MongoDB Enterprise Advanced is reasonable, but for heavy data usage, we see a little bit of cost pressure but it's acceptable. I will not be able to elaborate on that right now; we are satisfied with the pricing.

It's good; for first-time users, if somebody is looking for a good guaranteed database for all structured and unstructured data, MongoDB Enterprise Advanced is the way to go. On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution an eight.

MongoDB  does well in being able to access our network devices and keep logs and reporting—that's about it.

I would recommend MongoDB  as part of a template if anyone is considering free and open-source templating services such as LibreNMS , but as a standalone, I couldn't advise.

MongoDB has definitely helped us improve our network monitoring and reporting dashboard, so I would say it has impacted our operations positively overall.

I'm not sure about the documentation or the knowledge bases available for MongoDB because I don't interact with it at that level, but I would say it's minimal and could be improved.

I am not experienced with MongoDB enough to know any pain points or areas they could improve.

Nothing else comes to mind at this time that could be improved.

We deployed MongoDB about five years ago and it has been in operation since then.

I was not a part of the initial setup or deployment of MongoDB.

One person was involved with the setup team, and it took just a few days to deploy it.

Overall, on a scale of one to ten, I would rate MongoDB an eight; it's mostly because we're still running a monolithic environment on old hardware, so there are some limitations with read-write access.

At this time, I'm only looking into Cisco or Linux or other solutions out of curiosity about possibly switching to it, but currently all that we use are LibreNMS  and Splynx.

From what I know, I would say the initial setup of MongoDB was pretty straightforward.

On LibreNMS, they have a template for setting up the environment that includes all the services, so MongoDB is just part of that template, meaning they weren't really too hands-on with setting up MongoDB itself.

One person was involved with the setup team, and their job title was Network Operations Engineer.

I'm familiar with open-source databases such as MongoDB, and I don't think it's Grafana , but it's similar to Grafana , though I'm trying to think of what it's called.

I'm not entirely sure about the main differences between MongoDB and other open-source databases that I've used.

We haven't really delved too much into looking at comparisons for databases.

MongoDB is not currently supporting our AI-driven projects nor do we use it along with AI at all.

I don't know how MongoDB's document-oriented model has benefited our management processes; that's beyond my expertise.

I don't have experience with QRadar or Auvik or similar products.

I'm familiar with some Linux tools, just things such as smokeping, which we use implemented in our LibreNMS environment.

I'm only an operator, so I don't actually spend a lot of time developing MongoDB, thus I'm not sure what the best features are.

I would rate MongoDB an eight out of ten.

I am not a partner of MongoDB; I am just a customer.

I do not use MongoDB in AI projects; only CosmoDB is used for AI projects, as MongoDB is an old pattern for us, and the new workload in AI is for a new pattern, which is CosmoDB for AI apps.

I would recommend MongoDB because it is a good pattern and a good product for legacy; for us, MongoDB is for legacy databases and legacy apps, and in this scope, it is a good pattern and a stable database engine; however, for new deployments and new applications, CosmoDB is a better engine.

My experience as a partner with Microsoft is very good because we have been a partner for three or four years, and it has been a very good experience.

MongoDB may have advantages over Cosmos DB perhaps in metrics because you can make some dashboards with database metrics, and there are many tools in MongoDB for dashboarding that are perhaps better than CosmoDB.

The dashboards in MongoDB have more functionalities; for example, you can create a dashboard with MongoDB database data, and it is simple to create, such as some sales dashboards, while I do not see this functionality to rapidly create such dashboards in CosmoDB.

While MongoDB is a good product, it is also an expensive product for support, and its scalability is acceptable, but the big problem with MongoDB is the cost.

For security in MongoDB, we work with encrypted databases by default, but we have not contracted the security options in our contract because it is too expensive, so we only implement encrypted databases without the security pack, which is very expensive for us; in security, we are at the first steps, just using encrypted databases.

I think additional features needed in MongoDB include perhaps vector databases, as I think they are not supported right now.

I have been working with MongoDB for five years.

The scalability in MongoDB is limited because we only work with ReplicaSet with two servers, and in comparison, the scalability in CosmoDB is much better than the MongoDB ReplicaSet models; although you can set the auto-provisioning of a node in ReplicaSet, it is very expensive, and we have to work with manual scalability in MongoDB.

The performance of MongoDB is good, especially in a ReplicaSet model, but if you want to pass on to another model, for example, Sharding models, it is very complicated; in ReplicaSet, it is acceptable, but if your workload needs more performance, and you must pass to a Sharding model, it is complicated in MongoDB, whereas in CosmoDB, it is simple.

We have seen a little ROI, and we want to target CosmoDB for this return on investment because it is the better model for this feature; however, with MongoDB, it is difficult to calculate the return on investment, as it is too expensive for our use.

We pay approximately 2,000 euros per month for MongoDB.

This solution receives a rating of 7 out of 10.

Neutral

We used MongoDB  on AWS  for a specific project.

We put MongoDB  on AWS  for a specific project. It's easy to use.

If something is wrong on the cluster, then you need to contact the support team. The stability could be better.

I used MongoDB for about a year.

It's okay. It's acceptable. The stability could be better.

If something is wrong on the cluster, you need to contact the support team. At first, when we were trying to build a cluster.

Neutral

We rated MongoDB a seven out of ten.