Amazon S3 Reviews

Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

The main aspect we like is that it's been easy to use.

The solution scales well.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has been helpful.

The pricing and licensing are pretty complex. It needs to be simplified. 

They have no development environment. That means that even during the development time, we are paying.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

It would be helpful if there were more templates available. 

Our application is still new. We are just in development. Our testing environment is on Amazon S3. Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

We've used it maybe for about a year.

The solution is stable. Up until this point, we haven't had any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product can scale well. It's very easy to do.

We have around 6,000 people using the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If there are some problems, we can contact them directly.

Most problems are on our side as there are some configurations and other things we did wrong. We've noted our issues and have fixed them going forward. However, it's on us to fix them, not Amazon.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. That said, my company is an IT company and therefore it's not hard for us. If there are other people that maybe aren't in IT, if they use the Amazon service, it could be complex to them.

In terms of maintenance, sometimes if there is some problem, right now we have only three engineers. It's a little bit hard to maintain it with just that small amount. That's why we're hiring some professional companies for that.

We pay for the solution on a monthly basis. We use a basic license and any additional fees based on usage. 

It's complete licensing. It's not simple at all. 

We did look at an option from Google, however, there were some restrictions and we decided against using them.

I'd advise new users to read the documentation before deciding on using the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.

We use the solution to store deployment logs and tech information.

The solution is simple and affordable to use. The solution's API Integration requests are straightforward; we just have to integrate and acquire the service.

They should improve in the area of metadata curation. Sometimes we open metadata via open source or ground stations in the area. They should design some features with improved performance where we can gain insights as well. It will help in maintaining the solution considering the cost.

It would be great if they get a new feature with the QV mechanism.

We have been using the solution for seven or eight years.

I rate the solution's stability as a ten.

It is a very scalable solution. I have 100-300 colleagues using the solution.

The setup was straightforward. We had an engineer help us establish configuration between the backend and the object. We had to work on the permissions, and the rest was easy. 

We have an in-house engineering team. They are skilled in doing the entire setup.

It's worth the price considering its functionality.

I advise others to have a support team. They should ensure the best practices for transferring the use history from AWS onto other applications via the cloud. It's very easy to find those actions. Most importantly, they must be very careful about the solution's security. They should plan the automation model right, ensuring to maintain the surface area for security. Otherwise, they have nothing to worry about as the solution is well established.

I rate the solution as a ten.

We use the solution for data blocking and analysis. It is also used as a storage solution, gene access and maintaining access.

The most valuable features are VNet, virtual machines, and Elastic Kubernetes Service.

We have been using this solution for eight years and are using the latest version. It can be deployed anywhere. We can use a console and data from and on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution because it is low latency. We have several users and plan to increase usage in the future.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used a storage account in Azure and Data Lake.

The initial setup was straightforward. We use Terraform for deployment, and we only need one person for deployment.

We have seen a return on investment because we do not pay overhead costs.

It is expensive for storing, but it is way cheaper for retrieval.

We evaluated block storage.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have used Amazon for my personal projects. I was using it for my personal things and for test purposes. I didn't use any use case. I just put some data in and read it back again.

Overall, it's a good solution.

The stability is very good.

It's an easy solution to set up.

Maybe it could be a bit cheaper. There are many people using it or willing to use it, and the data size is increasing. It is reasonable at the beginning, however, then it is starting to get a bit expensive as the data size is increasing incredibly. It is getting more expensive.

I've been using the solution for maybe a few months just to understand the product how it works.

The product is stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I've never contacted technical support and have never dealt with them. Therefore, I cannot speak to helpful or responsive they would be if a person needed help.

I did not previously use a different solution. I did not use a cloud before. 

We have found the product easy to set up. It's simple. it's not too complex. 

It took about one week to set everything up.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of outside help from integrators or consultants. 

The solution started off reasonably priced, however, it is getting more and more expensive. 

It's a free service for one year.

I'm an end-user.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with its capabilities. 

Usually, I use it to make deployments and service solutions in the cloud.

I don't have to waste time buying some computer or buying some external list or whatever they want. I can buy S3 in one minute. I don't have to spend time going to shops or anything like that. The payment is really good, easy. 

I save a lot of time and money with contract people that have to format the computers and install all the applications. 

I can do snapshots and recover data very easily.

It's a very good solution. It is very user cool and very user-friendly. 

I don't have any problems with the solution. It's issue-free.  

I can get a lot of information and data out of the solution, which is critical for me.

It's able to keep diversions quite well. 

The product provides for an easy initial setup.

The solution needs to improve test recognition. We need bots to test that are better. It's just not as good as Google, for example.

My main issue is security. If a code is entered incorrectly, it could leave you vulnerable to attack. 

I'd like to see more connections between EC2 and S3.

I've been using the solution for two or three years.

It is very stable. I never had any problem with S3. It's good. The only problem for me is that it is very easy to put in code that might have some mistake, and, in the end, everybody sees your information. You could have an attack or a hack in as it is very easy to change the entire software.  That is a big issue for me and the guys. 

I don't have any problems with scalability. I have not run into any limitations, however, there may be limitations in terms of the number of folders. That said, I've never seen any scalability issues.

We have ten to 15 people working with the solution. However, it depends on the day. For example, sometimes I am using S3 to produce some information for e-commerce. In e-commerce, I have all the images and all the information that I need on a pdf. However, I'll have some websites where 1000 people are basically connecting.

Technical support is inefficient and poor. 

I am also familiar with Google products.

I previously used some solutions based on MinIO.

The solution is very easy to set up. It's not difficult or complex. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on each project. Some might just take minutes. Others may be longer.

How many people you need for deployment also varies according to what's needed. 

Sometimes we handle it in-house and sometimes we have others handle the initial setup. 

I have seen an ROI. Previously, I needed a lot of people to store, deploy, maintain. Now, I have only a couple of people to work at all this stuff.

The pricing is pretty good. We don't have any issues with it. 

I spend $20,000 more or less every month.

We are a customer and end-user.

We sometimes use the latest version of the solution, however, it depends. They normally update users on the direction of the product. I'm not sure if we have the latest right now or not.

With this product, you can manage your distribution and manage all the different hosted data and who is able to serve or write on the backend. If you make a mistake, you can return to the previous iteration. It's good, even though sometimes it can be a little slow. The price and the quality are very good.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of S3 is as an online storage solution. For example, in one of our projects, we were working on a document management system, so there were some documents that we processed and then stored on S3. We also used S3 to store some logos and images. 

This is a service on AWS, so it's cloud-based. 

Some of the most valuable features are how convenient and easy to use S3 is. It's nicely integrated with AWS and is available on the AWS console. 

It could maybe use more integration. 

I have been using S3 for about three years. 

Since this service is on AWS, you can scale it for storage and performance. 

There are a few thousand users, in my organization, using the AWS platform. 

I don't remember us having a case where we needed support on S3. 

Since it's cloud-based, you don't really install it. You may need some certificates to access it, which need to be installed locally. 

I know there are certainly monthly and yearly licensing plans, but I'm not sure which is more preferable. The yearly ones could probably be more affordable, but that's just a general suggestion. 

I rate S3 a nine out of ten. I don't want to give it a perfect ten, but it's very close. For the purposes of online storage, it's pretty good. I would definitely recommend Amazon S3 to others because it's easy to use, quite powerful, and does its job very nicely. 

I am managing the S3 storage solution from Amazon. From Microsoft, I'm managing the Azure administration. I handle that. As a part of that, I need to create the virtual machines, a point to site to VPN and Azure AD, AD synchronization with Windows server, a database server, mail server, and web server. I administrate all that.

We use Amazon S3 for storing files and documents on the cloud. I fill out the user whenever the files they use are downloaded. That is fully automated. After a few days, it can delete it. I've done the policy for the automated deletion.

Amazon S3 is great. We are using it for storage solutions.

Due to using S3, our data documents are safe and easy to access. It is better to keep them in the cloud as opposed to in our internal drive. You can access them from anywhere. Especially during the pandemic period, we are able to access remotely, as well. So it's good.

We are using the basic S3 bucket. It is easy to manage and easy to understand.

We need the mapping to Windows. That feature is needed in S3. That feature is in the Azure cloud where we can map it like a drive. We can map the cloud storage to the effort driving our Windows PC. But Amazon is not providing that feature for the S3 solution.

In the next release I would like to see mapping on the Windows machine. In Windows, there are drives right in volumes. We need to map these Amazon S3 storage to the Windows. That usually is available in the Azure. I would like to have that in the Amazon as well.

We have been using Amazon S3 for just six months as of now.

In terms of stability, it is good and has no issues.

We can scale Amazon S3 for storage. We can increase or scale up and we can scale down. It's easy to manage.

I'm happy where I'm at right now. If we need more storage, we will implement. We'll scale it up.

As of now, I haven't needed to contact support. It is really easy to manage. Even for the small issues, we can just Google the issues and find the solution. For complex issues, we may need to contact them, but as of now, I haven't needed to. I haven't faced any issues like that, so I didn't contact support. We have found that there is enough online documentation regarding S3.

We switched because of the security and scalability. It is highly secure because nobody can access it. Before we had solutions using an FTP and SFTP. That protocol is different and we are now using the S3. We need a shared key and an access secret key to access the particular storage. Without that, we cannot access. We cannot do anything. So security is more important. That's why we switched to Amazon S3.

The initial setup is simple and easy to manage.

It's not actually a deployment. It is a simple step. Within five minutes, we can deploy it.

Our implementation strategy for the solution is based on the user's document files and how much GB they want and how they want to access that particular story's solution. Based on that scenario, I create the S3 bucket on the cloud for the particular users - whoever wants to access that particular S3. I created that particular IM user, the user access for that particular storage. I make an access policy to that particular storage.

Our ROI is good based on our usage. We have multiple users who are accessing this S3 storage.

It's a monthly pricing.

We are happy with the pricing.

Amazon S3 is a great solution.

My advice is to have an implementation strategy based on the user usage.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Amazon S3 an eight.

We are making custom applications to the cloud.

We are service providers.

In terms of use cases, where a company wants to deploy their applications instead of building their servers on the premise, on the company premise. They can just, instead of buying servers and setting up networks and everything, buy space online on the AWS cloud. That way, you don't have to buy an expensive server. You already have servers online. You deploy your application. That's the main use case we are handling now. For example, if you have an in-house ERP, you want to move everything to the cloud. We migrate clients, for example. from on-premise to the cloud. If you have heavy tasks, there are computations that require heavy, powerful machines.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It’s easy to set up.

Technical support is excellent.

Amazon, especially its cloud, is the best on the market.

It can lower costs as you won’t need physical hardware on-site.

Regarding S3, S2, and E2, all I'd recommend is for pricing to be lower since we can easily overuse them. For example, if a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.

We’ve used the solution for a while.

AWS is very, very stable. It's actually the most stable cloud service for S3, for all the services provided on the cloud. They're very stable. However, compared to others, they are costly.

We started this year, so we haven't gone much into it. We became partners this year. Right now, we only have one client that we have recently started locally in Kenya.

The tech support is good. It's perfect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. AWS is the easiest to set up. It's the best actually among the cloud providers. It’s number one compared to Google Cloud, Oracle, or Microsoft Azure.

It took a few hours to set up.

We are integrators. We are able to handle the setup ourselves.

Their prices are higher than say Microsoft Azure or Google. So AWS is very easy to use yet expensive.

Licensing is pay as you go. The more resources you use, the more you pay, however, they seem to be more costly than competitors.

We have two options for the cloud. We can choose Oracle Cloud or AWS. We take what is suitable depending on the plan and the cost implications.

We became AWS partners this year.

I’d recommend this and any other AWS product to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.