Amazon AWS Reviews

I use the solution for deploying some applications that use cloud computing.

It offers a lot of tools, which we leverage. 

At the moment I'm using Lambda service and also AC2 machines - as a platform as a service and infrastructure as a service.

The pricing model is good. It's pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use. 

The solution offers a lot of very helpful documentation. There's also a great community that surrounds it that is quite helpful if you have questions or want to learn something. 

Personally, I need to improve myself in terms of the knowledge I have around the product. My goal is to maybe get certified in order to understand it better. It would be helpful if they would be able to provide me with more certification information. 

It's a good platform. I don't have any issues with it at the moment. 

It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time. 

I've used the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution is stable. We have many items deployed in AWS and we haven't had any issues. there are no bugs or glitches. It's problem-free.

AWS provides us with a lot of tools for deploying automatically when we are working, for example, in a new feature. We have options for automatic deployments and don't have issues with size.

There's a lot of great documentation and community support. I'm learning a lot and can find any answers I need there. 

I'm working with AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Computing right now.

I work with my customer's solutions and I deploy into AWS to provide the end product for my customers. I don't directly deal with AWS implementations themselves. 

The pricing is good and it's set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's not overly expensive. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd highly recommend the solution to other users. It's one of the best cloud options out there right now. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I was using Amazon AWS in the medical market in my previous employment.

Amazon is a really good solution with high performance. They offer more connectors than some of their competitors, such as Microsoft Azure.

Amazon AWS could improve by being more secure and adding more features.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately six years.

Amazon AWS in my experience has been more stable than Microsoft Azure.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 50 customers that are using the solution.

We have moved from Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure. I have found that both solutions perform very well. The main reason we switched was to allow us to manage where the data was to be stored. We wanted a data storage solution in France which most of our customers were requesting. Two years ago, Amazon did not have any solution to provide any storage in France. 

The level of difficulty for the installation of Amazon AWS is similar to Microsoft Azure. They are very difficult.

We have a five-person team of DevOps and architects that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

If I was going to compare the cost of Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, they are approximately the same.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We use several features of this solution for many purposes. For example, we use CloudFormation for infrastructure as a service, Kinesis for the message queue, Lambda for integration services, and ATC for hosting. 

We also use S3 for storing the data, clustering, Multizone security, AVS to attach hard disk, and assistant.

It is easy to use.

It has many features that we use.

It integrates well.

They upgrade a lot of applications.

If you are familiar with other cloud infrastructures, you can see that it is in need of some enhancements.

It is easy to enhance it to make the clustering easier.

At times, when you use CloudFormation to create five machines with a sequence name, it is difficult but can be done with Terraform easily. 

I would like to see CloudFormation made more in the programming way of thinking. You have some variables, LOB, IF statements, and inheritance, where it's not just the functionality that we have, but gives you the output. They could make it close to the programming language, even if it's a scripting language. They need more control over it such as an If-Then-Else statement and a sub-loop if possible. It will make it easier to create the infrastructure.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for more than seven or eight years.

We are using the latest version.

It is a stable solution.

Amazon AWS is a scalable solution.

I work as a consultant and have a couple of customers. Each customer is of a different size company but they are all over 1,000.

AWS has very good technical support. They react immediately when you need help.

When you speak of installation, you refer to applications already built or software in ATC to be installed. AWS doesn't sell applications, they give you an infrastructure as a service, application as a service, and a platform as a service but they don't give you applications to be installed.

There is no installation required in AWS.

The maintenance required depends on the size of the company. Some larger companies require a larger IT department while others don't require it at all.

A license is required. Some customers will provide their own license and others will purchase it directly from AWS.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in it.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

AWS is part of our network, we provide services to our internal customers and we have 2,000 plus applications which sit on the VMs and different blade servers. It's a mix, we're using a hybrid environment. I manage the company network and security; we are partners with Amazon AWS.

I value the automation and the stability of this product. Whether it is S3, EC2, the LSG, ASG, for us it's all good to implement.

AWS cloud has an issue with accessibility to the customer, it's very limited and if there's an internal issue, we won't know about it because they don't expose their APIs to many things. This is a generic cloud problem for all cloud products. It's not just AWS. It's Azure, Google, all of them have the same problem. They will never give you any information, and you can't even check their logs properly. That kind of transparency issue is critical because whether I'm using their infrastructure or not, I should have visibility with regard to what is happening in my network.

I'd like to see compatibility extended to include additional applications which are widely used but not compatible on the public cloud. Without them, you can't build the ecosystems for each and every thing. I realize there are so many applications around and you can't source everything but I'd like to see additional compatibility.

The solution has some limitations because you won't have the space for some of the applications. For example, Google is the only provider with a VMware product line. Some of the applications still need a physical server.

I've been using this solution for six years. 

The support is average, just like other cloud providers. It's not so great but it's average. You can't always blame someone, but cloud architecture is like that. Visibility is an issue. They don't offer the latest services and if you don't know, you can just track back to your VMs or the services which you have deployed. 

The initial setup was quite complex. You're designing something and have downloaded the infrastructure of cloud providers which is always complex. Once you start using the solution it becomes easy. 

It is most cost-effective to go for a long-term license option, that way you get a better deal for the cloud. 

I think at the cloud maturity level, I would rate AWS first, Azure second and GCP has just started. In 2015/16, AWS had a lot of issues, but now they are coming up with better solutions and better flexibility. That said, the transparency issue is still there. 

Azure is good for the Microsoft product line and if you are using that you should go with Azure - they will give you better service. But for third parties, it's the same transparency issue, just like any other cloud provider.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are using it for hosting some of our workloads. We offer managed services for our customers, mostly in the space of security in managed IT services, and some of these workloads are hosted on AWS.

It is highly available and on-demand. So, you can scale up and scale down whenever required.

Another thing that really attracts us is the pricing, which is based on the actual consumption of resources, and that's what really helps us.

They're really good on the business computing side, but there are other services where they can do really well. They can improve the data analytics platform and the data warehousing platform.

Its pricing can be simplified a little bit more.

I have been using this solution for more than three years.

It is quite stable. We did not find any challenge in the reliability of the platform.

We do contact their tech support, and we get the help whenever it is required. We are pretty much satisfied with them.

It was not too complex. We are very straightforward and not too complex in terms of our infrastructure.

Its pricing can be simplified a little bit more. Even though they have been reducing it, I still believe they can do better as compared to GCP, Google Cloud.

We advise people to go on AWS. We also do a readiness assessment for our customers. We do a kind of a TCO analysis for our customers, and depending on the use case, workload, and pricing model, we advise our customers. We do it for AWS, Azure, and GCP. I would expect customers to do the same thing. They should do a proper analysis because it depends on what workloads they want to move to the cloud. Based on that, they should select a hyperscaler.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of 10.

Our use cases are essentially infrastructure provisioning for backend services. We also use it for environment automation. 

We use it for CIPD. So, this is like AWS Beanstalk. We use it for infrastructure provisioning, auto-scaling some of the container services as well, block storage, such as S3.

It's a suite of services. There is no one thing that you can pinpoint and say that this is the most valuable.

AWS definitely works for us.

There are some subjective pain points, but we are pretty satisfied.

I have been using this solution for six or seven years.

We are not exactly using the latest version. We are using what Amazon rolls out.

It's software or infrastructure as a service, so we use what Amazon has.

We don' use the beta products and try to stay away from them. We only use what is generally available.

It's a stable solution. It's definitely reliable, we have run enough critical business services on it.

It scales extremely well. Most things are inbuilt. It is easy to scale vertically and horizontally.

It also functions on a tiering level, and that is based on what kind of customer you are.

Internally, there is some tiering on which they respond to tickets. 

Overall the customer service support is pretty comfortable. 

They usually respond and resolve tickets fairly quickly.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

They have different pricing models for each suite of services. For example, if you are with EC2; E2 has spot instances and EC2 has on instances. You can pay upfront or you can reserve an instance.

You can pay upfront or you can on an annual basis for certain machines, and you can keep them up which you get quite a competitive discount.

You can take spot instances, as in certain predefined instances, that you can spin up when you need it, but those ten to be expensive because it's ad-hoc.

You can also just go with the normal EC2 instances that are charged at the usual pricing rate.

For us, it's use-case specific and we move between all three pricing options.

Price can always be cheaper.

As a customer, I would wholeheartedly recommend this solution to others.

From our use cases and standards, most of the things are pretty much covered, so we're happy.

I've been pretty happy with my experience with AWS. I would rate Amazon AWS a solid nine out of ten.

Most of our managed services are in Amazon Web Services. We also use Kubernetes clusters for some of the cases. 

We are basically on the cloud, and most of our clients prefer AWS as the cloud provider. Most of the solutions have been on-premises, which basically involves migration to AWS. We also started using a hybrid model because some of the clients prefer a hybrid cloud kind of approach, where they have an on-premises model and something on the cloud so that they can just connect their data centers to the public cloud. 

We are mostly using EC2 compute and other resources. Most of our managed services are in AWS, which some of our clients prefer.

User personalization and robotic process automation services need to be mature enough. More APIs are required for robotic process automation services. Azure is more mature in terms of user personalization and robotic process automation services. 

The document processing can also be better. Whenever we want to do any kind of document management, I try to do OCR, ICR, etc. The functionality in AWS has to be more like that.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two and a half years.

It is a stable product. We do not have any issues with its stability. Most of the customers come for 99% to 99.95% availability. 

AWS has a very highly scalable model. Because the availability requirements are high, we typically go for additional redundancy. It is easily possible to support different operating models in AWS.

Their technical support is very good and fast. Whenever you need something to be fixed, they are able to do it completely.

It is comparatively very easy. We have our own R&D environment where we do our work. When we want to actually do something for the client, we just move the work that we have done in our R&D environment into the client's cloud. It is very easy to use all the services.

Its price is kind of okay. When we do a migration from on-premises to the cloud, we typically use the lift-and-shift model. Based on the studies that we have done, cost savings are definitely there when we moved from on-premises to the cloud.

I feel that you shouldn't basically stick with any particular cloud provider. If you really want to take the benefits of a multi-cloud environment, you should not build your applications focused on any particular cloud provider. You should build something that is generic, and whenever required, you should be able to switch to any kind of cloud provider. People tend to actually focus on one particular cloud provider, and they start building their applications to cater to that provider. You shouldn't do that. You should reap the benefits of all cloud providers. This is what we also say to our clients.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten. It is really good as compared to the other cloud providers such as Google Cloud.

• ECS (EC2 Container Services)
• EC2
• RDS
• Route 53

At this point, we have been testing applications that are managed by third-parties. The benefit we see at this stage is mainly cost. We are now starting to see the benefits that the platform has to offer.

At this stage, we have found the services we are using are meeting our needs. We have been asked by management to incorporate high-security (encrypted email and data volumes) on all services. Some of the security features require extra configuration to achieve that.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about seven months.

At this point, there have been no stability issues.

Scalability has been good using services like ECS, ECR Load Balancing, and Auto Scaling features.

We have not had a need to engage support for any assistance.

Our previous solution was supported by a third-party. We saw the opportunity to reduce cost by managing it ourselves, in-house.

The setup was easy at first, because a lot of the services are wizard driven. We found as we needed to customise the services further, we had to do most of this manually to get the desired result.

Pricing has been quite surprising, since we are running both DEV and UAT platforms simultaneously. It is definitely cheaper than the solution that has been managed by the third-party.

We did not evaluate other options. This was the one that management had chosen. I do not believe this was based on a technical viewpoint. I just think it was decided.

You have to be able to not think as if on-premises systems are sitting in a data centre. Everything, and I mean everything, is a service that is launched by a script. We are able to run up a platform, say UAT, entirely in about an hour. The plan will be to do this entirely by scripts.