The product is stable. 

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten since AWS provides a relatively resilient solution in general due to load balancing and auto scaling capabilities.

In terms of stability, I would say Redshift's workload management is generally stable. However, the way Redshift distributes the workload is not as scalable. I often don't have clear visibility into what queries are on hold, their priorities, or other relevant information. 

On the other hand, Snowflake provides more transparent insights into the queue and running queries, and it also informs me when the queue will be drained. Snowflake's multi-cluster approach to handling workloads surpasses Redshift in these aspects.

The stability of Amazon Redshift is good.

We've had some cases where queries would get stuck, and we'd be on them for ages. I don't have the transparency to see what other queries are already running or if we're running out of some kind of resource. There weren't many major problems, but sometimes we'd get these annoying issues, especially when running complex queries.

We sometimes have issues with stability, especially over the weekends. It performs, of course, but sometimes there are problems. 

We have an SLA of 99.99%. The product is available most of the time. The vendor maintains the SLA well. They also have a scheduled maintenance window.

I rate the solution's stability as a seven.

We have found Amazon Redshift to be stable.

Amazon Redshift is super stable, and we haven't faced any outages or other issues.

I don't see any issues with data loss or any other problems. Although there might be some loss in the data center, we monitor it, and everything is enabled. In such scenarios, the turn-up time is much faster. We've been using it since 2018, and I've got the same product for another customer using a limited rate. So, I don't see any significant impact, and it's a very stable product.

The tool is quite stable.

I haven't faced any stability issues because when it works, it runs continuously.

The solution is stable. I haven't had any problems or downfall with the database in the 10 months that I have used the solution.

There are issues with stability and it should be compared with Snowflake.

The product is very stable, and so are all other cloud-based managed Enterprise data platforms (Snowflake, BigQuery and Azure Synapse)

Amazon Redshift is reliable and has high availability.

The stability is good. For a mid-size company, it's very stable.

I rate the solution’s stability as a nine.

Stability-wise, it has a lot of issues with threats, and that is why we went for a threat shift optimization. In short, I mean to say that it is not stable at all.

For stability, I would give a rating of ten out of ten.

I think Redshift is stable. There shouldn't be any issues. 

Amazon Redshift is a stable solution.

The solution is very stable. 

We have not faced any stability related issue so far.

This solution is stable.

The solution is very stable. It's better than OWC, as a technology. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The product is 100% stable.

The solution has four maintenance windows so, when it comes to stability, I think it would be better to decrease their number.

It is fairly stable and works reasonably well.

No issues of stability at this point.

The management of the dates for what we can deliver to it, it's always specific to the form that's defined to Amazon Redshift.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I can't remember what stability issues we had faced in the past, but I feel that it was due to overloading clusters.

This is a stable product.

We have not had many issues with stability.

It is stable.

The stability is awesome. We have been using it for quite a while and haven't faced any issues.

I have encountered stability issues. A few weeks ago, I encountered an issue with hardware failure and database health status failure. When we face these kind of issues, we can't do anything from our side until the Amazon technical team finds the issue and rectifies it. It takes time to get resolved. If we are in a rush to deliver something for a client and encountered these issue, we are really screwed.

I once had an issue because my data contained a Unicode NULL character in a VARCHAR field ("\u0000"). The AWS support has been very quick and helpful to respond. Other than that, I have had no issues whatsoever.

We did encounter stability issues, i.e., if you are using more than 25 nodes (ds2.xlarge), the cluster is totally unstable.

I have not encountered any issues with stability. In terms of performance, Redshift is highly stable.

Amazon Redshift is a stable solution. However, there are many times the environment configuration changes very quickly without any intimidation and it creates a lot of problems for running our codes.

We have not really had stability problems. The product is mature and can be utilized for production systems.

No.

Yes. Sometimes, for some reason, Redshift is down (not due to maintenance).

There have been no stability issues.

I understand that Amazon Redshift is quite stable and it has features like higher readability. So I think it should be a good product to be used.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

There were stability issues in the beginning. However, the product has improved quite a lot in the last two years in term of stability.

RedShift is a stable solution.

We have not faced any stability related issues so far.

This solution is stable, although we have had some issues with maintenance.

The solution is getting more stable with each new version. It's stable now, but it can always continue to improve.