Amazon AWS Reviews

We have applications that are running on the PaaS platforms.

In the healthcare environment, we use Amazon AWS to run healthcare and hospitalization applications.

The end-user is largely unaware of how the backend works, so some of the services are provided by Amazon. So, where we are, some of the applications have been running since the beginning, and we have been using them. And some of the services are required by the packages we are running, so they use Amazon PaaS as a service.

In general, Amazon's performance is good.

When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a few years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution, it is far more stable than some others.

Amazon AWS is scalable, depending on the platforms and services that are used.

In our company, we have 50,000 employees who use this solution.

We intend to increase our users based on how the new releases go, and if the economics work out better than Google and Microsoft, we will definitely look to Amazon because Amazon can be extremely competitive at times.

It should be faster. Unlike Google's and Microsoft's support, Amazon's support should be faster.

We have used other PaaS clouds previously.

The hospitals were available on Amazon. We have certain hospitals that were part of the group when it first started, but there are a lot of hospitals that are in the process of being acquired. Once the setup is acquired, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for them to bring it through one enterprise architecture. Now, it is not necessary to have services from only one cloud service provider; instead, we can have services from multiple providers, and we are working to integrate the multi-cloud.

Essentially, you must design and optimize the architecture. It is not the most straightforward process to install. You must first design your architecture and then optimize it in relation to the services.

Earlier I used to work there, and we had a real skill shortage because we needed people who could understand and work in the cloud. When we developed centers of excellence and core competencies, people were required to work across multiple platforms, which is a challenge that we are currently working on. As a result, the real challenge now is for a team to have a multi-cloud. Now, if we can develop this talent organically, that will be fantastic. We'll spread out the support team we require. Another initiative that is being worked on is automation, automating scripts, and new technologies, which are assisting us greatly with serverless and cloud computing.

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

Yes, I would recommend this solution. If we compare the three, I would rank Google first, Microsoft second, Amazon third, and the rest would follow.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

This is a service solution for architecture. It's a cloud solution basically for anything you need. 

I'm happy with the solution.

It's very easy to use. 

The stability and performance are great.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support has been great.

I'd like the solution to be more plug-and-play.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been a while.  

The stability is very good. The performance is great and it's quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

AWS scales well. It's not a problem to expand it. 

We have 100 users using the solution at this time. They are end-users and clients. 

Our plan right now is to increase usage in the future.

I've used technical support in the past. I don't have any complaints about their services. They are quite good overall.

We did use a different solution, however, the company decided to move to AWS.

There's no installation involved. It's a very straightforward product.

As there is no installation process, you don't need a technical team and you don't have to do any maintenance. 

There is a license fee that you need to pay. There are flexible payment options. For example, you can pay monthly if you want to.

I do recommendations for the development of cloud solutions. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of AWS is that you can scale it up and down as you need. The environment is a rich playground, and if you tried to do the same things on-premises that you do on AWS, it would be a lot more challenging to execute. You can open up a virtual machine on AWS, run some experiments, and be done with it. It's much easier than buying new servers, provisioning them, etc. 

Most of the companies that I've worked for deal with AWS. 

I don't know how many servers they say they have, but AWS is a highly reliable platform. I'm sure they've had outages because it's all over the news when they do, but it's stable overall.

Cloud solutions like AWS are supposed to have near-infinite scalable. That's the point. You can just keep going and make them as big or small as you need. 

AWS is like all the other cloud providers. They're all like vacuum salesmen, where they come in, and they say, "Do you want to buy this hose or this vacuum?" And you're like, "Yeah, it's not that expensive. It's a hose." And then they say, "How about these extra bags?" And you're like, "Okay. I'll buy the bags. It's not that much." Then, at the end of the day, you've bought an entire vacuum store's worth of stuff. You don't know upfront what it will cost, but they have cost calculators and other things like that.

You'll probably experience some sticker shock with AWS. You attempt to understand the cost, but you don't realize what you're paying until you get your first bill. I don't know if Amazon does that on purpose, but costs can get out of control quickly if you don't have someone who specializes in AWS cost management.

I don't even know how many microservices they have now. It seems like hundreds, so what do you do. What would you tell them to do with Aurora compared to their other stuff? There's just so much there that it's tough to get a comprehensive understanding of what you're getting into with AWS. And that's just the nature of AWS. It's a giant ecosystem. Azure is the same. I'm not familiar with GCP, but I'm sure it's the same. They do their best to make it as clean as possible from a sales perspective, but the AWS sticker shock is real.

I'm not sure about the exact costs. When I used to do stuff with Commvault and stuff, I knew the ingress and egress fees and the data cost for storage on AWS, but that was a long time ago.

I guess I would rate Amazon AWS eight out of 10. AWS works as advertised, but they're expensive if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not sure if I can knock them for not being transparent about pricing. Cloud costs are challenging. There's an entire industry popping up for managing cloud costs with consultants who can tell you how to get the most out of your AWS allocation. 

I don't have a lot of advice. If you're planning to implement a cloud solution, just pick one. I mean, if you're a Microsoft shop, it probably makes more sense to go Azure. If you're not, then I would recommend AWS. It depends on what you're looking to get out of it. 

There are references, architectures, case studies, and a million other things that would off better advice on whether to go with AWS or not. But if you're looking to go to the cloud, AWS is as good as everybody else. AWS is probably better than Azure and GCP, but that's a tricky thing to pin down. It depends on what your goals and requirements are. My best advice is to evaluate your goals before making a decision.

I hope that people take what I say about AWS with a massive grain of salt because it's like asking an ant about an elephant. What's an ant going to know about an elephant? It's just too big for any one person to know.

We use Amazon AWS for many applications as well as Amazon's native services. We have a mix of content-based workloads and traditional legacy type of applications. 

Amazon AWS contains a lot of helpful services. 

Amazon AWS would be improved if it were more stable and if customer support's responses were faster. 

I have been using this solution for many years, somewhere between seven and ten. 

This solution has been relatively stable. We had one issue sometime back, so the infrastructure could be more resilient. 

This solution is scalable. 

I have contacted customer support and their response time could be faster. 

We migrated to Amazon AWS from the Data Centers. 

The installation was straightforward. The installation time varies depending on workloads. 

I implemented through an in-house team. We have multiple teams for deployment and maintenance. 

There is no licensing cost. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten. I recommend this solution to anyone who wants to start using it. 

We use Amazon AWS because it has really advanced parameters and suits our business.

I like that it helps us do everything really fast, and its advanced services.

The price could be better.

I've been using Amazon AWS for about four months.

Amazon AWS is stable, and there aren't any issues that I know about.

Amazon AWS is scalable.

I didn't notice any problems or issues related to this area, and everything was fine.

The initial setup wasn't easy because we implemented this process over two months, and it was a complex process.

It's an expensive product.

My company considered not only one provider, and it was really a complicated process to review all the providers. We had our checklist of all necessary requirements, and it was quite complicated. We chose AWS because of its advanced features that let us do everything quickly.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS a nine.

The price point and ease of use are the most valuable features. The cost per GB per month has always been reasonable. 

It is easy to set up buckets and upload files using the AWS Console.

The ease with which you can move files from short-term (S3) to long-term storage (i.e., Glacier) via a dashboard. With the introduction of Glacier as a long-term storage option, having some type of function key to simplify the transfer of files between the S3 and Glacier environments would be beneficial and increase efficiency. Perhaps it could be incorporated as an option when using the S3 Service or Glacier service; i.e., a "Transfer to Glacier" and "Transfer to S3."

I have been using AWS S3 since 2007 or 2008.

We have not had any stability issues.

We have not had any scalability issues.

We previously used in-house data storage (HD and NAS).

The initial setup was easy and straightforward, as opposed to some other solutions.

I cannot speak to the licensing questions, but the pricing per GB/month is reasonable and competitive.

We didn’t look at alternatives, as it was the first cloud platform solution on the market at the time, at least that I was aware of.

There are a plethora of options, but it certainly should be given primary consideration.

The whole IaaS model is an invaluable service. The ease of deployment, maintenance, and scalability, and pay as you go model make AWS an amazing platform to build on.

AWS sitting at the core of our service, and we have been able to provide an amazing number of features, that were otherwise very expensive, and labor intensive to put in place, these include high availability, business continuity planning, disaster recovery, among others.

AWS has an amazing feature set but I have not used all of them to be able to have a well rounded opinion about improvement. However, of the features I have used, I would say IAM policies, and cross account access would probably be one of the main areas of improvement. Amazon is working on a "Service Catalog" which could potentially fill some of these holes.

I've used it for three years.

Surprisingly, since starting to use AWS, the process has been quite simple. The deployment was very smooth. Despite this, it does take a bit of getting used to when working with VPCs, and networking in an AWS context, but that's a fairly quick learning curve that can be attained easily.

Like anything, failures happen every once in a while. I have experienced some failed hardware under my instances, which caused a brief outage. The stability of the service, however, is also much more reliant on the architecture of the application than the stability of the AWS infrastructure. In any case, AWS has been quite stable over all.

Scalability is one of AWS' strengths. Scaling resources, be it an AWS EC2 instance, or an RDS instance is a snap. Also, scaling into multiple geographic regions in the world is also possible, and quite a realistic view in that environment.

My experience with AWS customer service has been stellar. Everyone I come into contact with from Sales, to Technical Support are always friendly, and courteous.

The technical support team is quite knowledgeable, and there is no question asked that doesn't get addressed with full attention, complete with references, examples, and a recap of conversations that were conducted.

Their technical support processes are clearly well thought out. I can always know what communication to expect, and the level of help that I can expect to receive. I have yet to call them on an issue where a resolution wasn't reached on the first or second contact.

Previously, I used co-location services. The reason I switched is quite obvious:

• Cost
• Constant overheads
• Constant challenge of meeting budgets with consistent cutting edge technology

AWS has removed all these variables, and allowed me to concentrate on growing my services without having to worry about aging servers, or under capacity hardware, etc.

Understanding AWS is actually quite easy. There are some notions that require a bit of previous knowledge to grasp. The good news is that the documentation available about the different services is quite extensive, which can give anyone a head start in launching their AWS services. The complexity of using AWS is directly related to the robustness of the application/service that is being deployed. The more AWS services are integrated together, the more complex the deployment will become.

All AWS services were deployed in-house, with assistance from AWS support teams.

Because there is no initial investment in AWS services (it's a pay as you go service in its basic form) the ROI is immediate. Because AWS costs are consistently being reduced, it is a great way to build services, offered at affordable prices, while still getting good returns on investment.

As mentioned above, AWS does not really have initial setup costs. It's like a utility company; you use the service, and pay for your usage. The daily cost is dependent upon the service being deployed at that point in time. For the flexibility, and consistent cutting edge technology that AWS operates on, it's well worth the price.

I have evaluated Azure, and Google as IaaS. Quite honestly, Google was too convoluted for my purposes, and although Azure had some nice "Microsoft-y" features that AWS doesn't necessarily have, I still felt that it was much easier to get started with AWS, than it is with the other services.

Don't be afraid of "The Cloud". As prominent as it is today, a lot of people, and small businesses, are still afraid of storing their data away from their physical office. There are a ton of advantages in using AWS for your infrastructure instead of on-premises equipment. Give it a serious look before dismissing it. There is a lot that can be added here, but that could be an article all on its own.