Amazon AWS Reviews

We're using AWS for limited purposes right now. The university has its storage, servers, and large amounts of data center equipment, and the cloud fills a niche. We put things in the cloud so that others have access. But from a storage standpoint, 95 percent of the usage is entirely on-premises. We might use it more in the future, but we're trying to build up a storage ecosystem right now. We'll likely build that around some open-source solution, like Ceph or MEAN.io, or something from a popular vendor. 

RedHat has Ceph storage too, and IBM has object storage. I'm not sure what the university will go with, but those are the ones we are looking at. We're using AWS S3 for general storage and storing images. We also use AWS as a platform for building some web services and things like that. 

We've built several AI ML solutions and done lots of work on the GPUs available on Amazon servers. We did a lot of work around web spidering, natural language processing, and machine learning or deep learning workloads. 

I think Amazon could improve some of the security or fine-grained access for metadata and many other things. From a cloud standpoint, Amazon provides more ways to restrict access or provide fine-grained access to different services. For the time being, I think the ecosystem is relatively secure, but there is room for improvement. 

AWS is scalable. It's serving about 150 users at my company right now. All of the users are researchers who do their own thing. Each research team manages its own partition and has fine-grained access to all the services. Small groups of around 10 to 15 people manage their own respective groups as to all the requirements associated with AWS.

We customized our Amazon AWS deployment. The process takes about three to five hours, depending on the ecosystems we are building. It depends on whether it is related to web services or the call configuration. Some configurations take no more than half an hour. If you're doing something involving the server, you need to personally install some servers and some of the other database-related stuff.

I'm one of the AWS architects, but we have administrators who take care of the maintenance. I'm looking at some of the SNIA content, and it seems pretty good for object storage or some of the other storage-related options. I'm still trying to see which solutions are potentially more suitable for us. 

I'm not sure about the licensing. I don't know what kind of subscription the university bought. I imagine it's similar to Cognizant, which had a usage-based mechanism. We bought yearly subscriptions for specific servers while pre-booking some of the server-based storage or computing infrastructure.

We've used Azure also. They are all fairly good. 

I rate AWS eight out of 10. I used to work in Cognizant and TCS before that, and we used different cloud services, such as Amazon and Azure. If you want some kind of public cloud infrastructure, I would go with one of these or maybe Google Cloud. The university is in the process of setting up its own storage or server ecosystem. We plan to store massive amounts of video, images, and other objects, like our AI/ML workloads. 

We use the solution for many use cases, such as application hosting, virtual desktops, and disaster recovery.

Customers don't need to calculate what their future requirements need to be. They can start using Amazon AWS no matter what the requirements are and if they increase size it can support them. By using the solution they can reduce their infrastructure, which helps them reduce the cost and of their infrastructure.

This solution is used as the basic requirement for any virtual machines use cases, the storage is used for each use case.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a year and a half.

The solution is stable. We have global customers on this platform. If you see the past records of Amazon AWS, there has been rarely any downtime or something happening.

Amazon AWS is scalable., there are different tools that help to maintain the scalability of the solution. Many of the tools are free of cost. There is no restriction on how many people can use this solution.

We have 500 customers in the Mumbai region and we plan to increase usage.

There is vendor technical support but it is not required if they are taking our support. The customers can directly purchase their support. Our small customers, are purchasing AWS support and they are pleased with the support.

The initial setup difficulty depends on the customer's environment. If it's a simple single virtual machine, then it's a simple setup. If it's an SAP-type workload on AWS, then it is somewhat complicated.

If it is a small single-server implementation, it will take one day to deploy. Otherwise, from an application perspective, your team needs to handle everything and it could take beyond 15 days to one month.

We have our own team that does the deployment.

The price of the Virtual Desktop service from Amazon AWS could improve, it is more expensive than competitors. The pricing model we are using is pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use.

The technical support from Amazon is extra and there are more than 200 services you can use that has a cost.

My advice for those thinking about the implementation of Amazon AWS is to start using it, do not have fear to use these services. If you know how it works and you receive the right support, it always helps to reduce the cost and headache of IT.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

The solution is useful in many ways. If you want to invest in on-prem infrastructure, it is going to be a huge cost. If you could add auto-scaling features and load balancing features on AWS Cloud, the e-commerce site can use the autoscale feature to handle any traffic threshold or additional workloads. I have two, three customers who are using this feature and they are getting benefits out of it.

Amazon, in terms of cloud infrastructure, is really robust.

The product is scalable.

They provide cutting-edge features compared to other cloud vendors. 

They offer many services that are unique to AWS. 

The availability is a good feature. They have certain criteria. For global virtualization, if you want to scale and operate across the world, AWS can provide the infrastructure without limiting the performance. They have those provisions such as availability. 

In terms of latency and other things, AWS is great.

The online knowledge base is very helpful and has a vast amount of information for users.

The solution could always have better performance. 

Some extensions are better than others. 

We'd like it if the solution was more secure. 

I've been dealing with the solution for over three years. It's been a while. 

The solution is robust and stable. The solution is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution is highly scalable, especially for the storage part. They have storage called S3 Object Store, which is virtually unlimited. You can scale it to an unlimited amount. It's great.

For AWS, if I compare it to Huawei, Huawei support, Huawei is better compared to AWS, however, AWS is better compared to Google and Oracle or SAP and all of those other clouds. Due to the fact that AWS has a very good knowledge base, you can easily find answers to any issue you might have. 

I've also used similar solutions such as Oracle and Azure. I've also dealt with Huawei.

As a cloud-based solution, there isn't really an installation process. 

While some clients will take a monthly subscription, we tend to do an SLA reseller with them for a one-year or three-year contract.

I'm a reseller.

As a cloud-based solution, we're always on the latest version. We don't have to manually update it. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. Even compared to other solutions, such as Oracle and Azure, it is much better.

I've been a specialist for AWS for installation, however, I recommend solutions based on the company's requirements. However, it will help them in many ways. 

We are running everything on the cloud. That's our primary use case. All the servers we are using are on AWS. The only thing we have on SAP's cloud is the analytics part. Everything else is running on AWS.

The scalability of the product is the solution's most valuable feature. It expands very, very easily.

I don't have any complaints about the configuration capabilities or the interface.

The pricing seems to be good.

The technical support should be better than what is on offer right now.

I've used the solution for a while now. It's been about four years in total, from what I recall.

The solution scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, it's very easy to do. It's one of the solution's most striking features.

The support could be better. It's an aspect of the solution that isn't as good as everything else. We aren't satisfied. They need to be more helpful and responsive.

We also use SAP. In terms of SAP, I'm running all my servers on this IP at this moment. We have our development, our quality, and also production sites on it.

We can't complain about the pricing. So far, it doesn't seem to be too expensive.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Amazon.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall. We've been very, very happy with the capabilities we've been able to experience so far.

We are using it for File Transfer Protocol (FTP) services. We are using it for file transfers from the US to India via FTP.

It is flexible. It is quite comfortable to use for organizations.

It just needs to be improved from the security perspective.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have 200 to 300 users currently, and we might increase its usage.

We don't have any challenges with technical support. We are fine with it.

There isn't much installation. It is just about hosting things, which doesn't take that much time. It was quite easy configuration-wise and implementation-wise.

We did it ourselves.

We evaluated Azure and other products.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

I am a software developer and I have experience with several languages and technology stacks. Amazon AWS is one of the technologies that I work with. It's integrated with the solution that we have. It's a continuous integration and deployment pipeline.

The most valuable feature is the availability, as we work in different availability zones.

It has been easy to use, and the tools included are quite friendly.

The reliability and ease of use are the benefits.

At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need. That doesn't mean that the tool is lacking it means that we are trying to be more creative than the tool and the rest of the market. In cases like this, it is we who need to revise our plans.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for one year.

We are pretty happy with the stability.

The only issue that we have encountered is when Amazon had problems with one of their availability zones that impacted half of the world. We found that we were impacted as well, but it wasn't that difficult for us because we already had a solution with multiple zones. We had a minimal outage, as we were swapping from one server to another. It took less than ten minutes for us, so we were pretty pleased.

It's a scalable solution.

We have both options of vertical and horizontal scalability. Everything that we have needed so far has worked well. We have no complaints.

We are in the process of scaling up. We have an IoT solution and if we translate that to endpoints and devices that are monitored, we would have 70,000 devices, and counting, in the field. In terms of clients, there are 300 to 400, each of them with their own users.

We have contacted technical support and because we are just a small client, rather than a partner, it can take 30 minutes to get a solution. We have not had to use it much to this point, so this may not be a fair evaluation.

This solution was already in place when I started with the company. AWS was in-place and they have never switched to anything else.

Our build, or deployment, is dependent on the application, but the pipeline for submitting a new commit and making it a hot deploy would take from five to twenty minutes, depending on the solution.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

I'm not very experienced in the solution yet. I don't have a clear view of all that is offered, but with the experience that I do have, I'm pretty happy with the features and it is difficult for me to find where they are lacking.

Currently, I am switching to Redshift, which is one of their solutions that is already deployed. I can't say that I'm missing anything from their roadmap, so far.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

We were not a "born in the cloud" company. Our email server solution was first deployed as on-premise, then as a hosted service on bare metal in a data center and then has been ported to AWS.

The main reason to move from hosted bare metal to AWS was the flexibility in adding storage on demand. However, as we worked with Amazon we realized that it could help improve the scalability and availability of our SaaS offering with the other Amazon services.

Using AWS services has allowed us to have a more atomized architecture, which is allowing us to build scale into each service.

We have deployed a variety of services from AWS. Most commonly EC2, EBS, S3, Lambda, Elastic Search, RDS and NFS Gateway.

The cloud storage based on S3 is one the most valuable services we have deployed since it allows us infinite scale in storage and extremely high durability.

AWS is innovating at a very fast pace. They are very customer focused. They keep up and exceed customer expectations.

There was some new learning in terms of IOPS on the EBS storage. The concept of burstable IOPS was new and we did have a few outages when we ran out of IOPS. After moving to provisioned IOPs for the EBS we have not faced any issue.

Once the IOPs are used up, it takes a long time for the burst balance to be filled up. The only option is to move the data to another disk. This causes downtime. It would be better if we could continue to use at the baseline IOPs.

We did not have scalability issues.

Technical support is responsive, accurate and helpful. Right in line with their philosophy of customer obsession.

We have hosted our SaaS offerings on various data centers in India and the USA prior to moving all the workload on to AWS.

The setup itself was not complex. However, it was an involved exercise moving the email data of all our customers from the data centers to AWS without much downtime.

If you want to move all production loads to AWS, the fastest way forward is lift and shift (which is what we did). However, this may prove to be more expensive than bare metal until the time the solution is updated to use the different AWS services. For example, when we shifted the load to AWS we paid a high cost as the mail stores were hosted on EBS. The storage cost drastically reduced after moving to S3.

We did look at Microsoft Azure, but found that AWS had far more flexibility, options and ease.

There can be a tendency to get excited by all the options available. We advise to start small and focus on the services which solve your core problems.

In fact this is the very strength of the AWS cloud platform; easy and rapid experimentation, start small and scale on demand. The flexibility and malleability of the cloud platform has been an all new experience for us.

I have been providing consulting services around the cloud solution for the past four to five years, during which AWS was the market leader and the de facto cloud service. AWS definitely helped me to help my customers adopt a cloud strategy smoothly and in a timely manner.

Elasticity has always been AWS's mandate. The flexibility of their platform from a systems perspective lives up to its claims.

• I would have hoped that their networking model was a little more network oriented and flexible, as is their systems model.
• The networking models used in AWS, while functional, do have room for improvement. This is especially the fact, considering that they are built/presented from a systems perspective.
• More granular control of networking, as well as a richer set of networking features, could really go a long way in building globally scalable infrastructures.
• The Identity and Access Management (IAM) authentication model could use some work as well. The fact that it isn't very straightforward/streamlined to authenticate applications that are not running on AWS infrastructure can complicate things when trying to use different (non-AWS) environments for specific activities. A simple and common example of this is working in a development environment, and having code that relies on interacting with AWS services. Being forced to store sensitive key information in your codebase isn't a very secure manner of operations.
• Given the recent surge of adoption and interest in containers and container orchestration, Amazon ECS is seen as a proprietary Amazon service. This makes it impossible to use Amazon ECS on other platforms, whether for development purposes, or for rolling out multi-cloud types of deployments. If you use an alternative, such as Kubernetes, this can easily be configured and ported to any environment, as it is an open-source project.

I have not had any issues with stability on AWS. However, it is worth noting that they did have uptime issues in the past. While there weren't many issues, they still did happen.

The only issue that I faced with scalability was due to the soft limitations that AWS applies on the allowed number of resources, e.g., the number of VPCs per account, the number of EIPs per VPC, etc.

I do not have much experience working with AWS's technical support. However, their forums are vast and pretty full of useful information.

AWS was sort of the first of its kind, so I did not use a different solution previously. However, today I find myself a lot more invested in the Google Cloud Platform, as oppose to AWS.

It was relatively straightforward to install. I have read reviews of others facing issues with getting their accounts approved. However, I never faced such issues.

Be careful with your consumption, especially when you are testing things. Costs can creep up on you relatively fast, without even noticing.

As mentioned earlier, since AWS was the first of its kind, I didn't really have many other options at the time. I remember one of the other players at the time was Rackspace, but they were considerably more expensive than AWS.

Picking a cloud platform is not a process that should be taken for granted. The leading cloud service providers today each have their pros and cons. It's best that you assess your options, and start with the cloud platform that best suits your needs. After that, your next step would be to start considering a multi-cloud strategy.