I use AWS for our insurance portal, managing clients, investments, and other related data.
We use S3, Lambda functions, and EC2 instances for various tasks, including RDR instances.
I use AWS for our insurance portal, managing clients, investments, and other related data.
We use S3, Lambda functions, and EC2 instances for various tasks, including RDR instances.
Its set up is plug and play, so it improves the implementation.
AWS is known for its scalable cloud hosting and computing services. We use various features depending on our needs, including endpoint services, database instances, and EC2 instances.
There is room for improvement in pricing.
I have been using it for two years.
It's stable.
I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. Maybe some technology gap, which we don't know is there.
It's scalable. Currently, around 1500 users are using our application. We might increase the further usage.
We only contacted customer service and support once. The response was very quick.
Setting it up was easy.
The entire deployment process took us around two to three months. It is a manual process but we plan to automate it with Terraform soon.
We did it in-house. We learned and upgraded our skills ourselves.
We had a team of admins and developers for the deployment process.
It's a bit expensive but stable and easy to use. Licensing fees depend on the contract. It can be monthly or on-demand resources.
AWS is very good to use. Moreover, the integration between various AWS services is very easy.
Overall, I would rate my experience with AWS a seven out of ten.
The thing is, in case of disaster, then you really need to think about the disaster, which is less cost-effective. If I'm the customer and I have a midsized environment, I need to host a web application or a front-end application. Why should I go with this on-premises data center, the firewall, the hardware, and then monitoring, then administration? These are more cost-effective.
So, I will go with the midsized and small-sized public cloud where I can have the opportunity for high availability with the region side. And secondly, in case of disaster, we have the product available without any downtime.
The style, the thoughts, and the people are still not convinced with this public. But they don't have any other options. It has been changed after the pandemic only.
The best thing is scalability.
Some people complain that customization is very difficult in AWS. So they think there are other options. If we have everything ready in AWS or any public cloud, if I have two deployments in bulk, then I will get automation. If automation is ready, then I can do everything in a single click.
In future releases, I would like to see more automation.
I started using this solution after the pandemic. So, it has been three years now. And one thing I have noticed is that after the pandemic, it is more recommended to move to the public cloud.
Prior to the pandemic, people were thinking of expanding their data strategically with Cisco UCS. They thought in that way. But now the approach has changed.
I used Amazon AWS for a small business, like a midsized business that wants to build their environment in the public cloud. And they want to get high availability, and in case of disaster recovery, they can have other opportunities.
We don't have a much bigger environment. So we have a smaller environment, like 10 to 15 VMs.
For a smaller project in Europe, we deployed Dell VXL for 35 sites. The customer has now invested in Dell VXL and is building 30 to 35 sites for Dell VX-ten. This is a huge investment, so they need to stay on this platform for five years. By the end of their standard support period, their hardware will be end of its life. In the meantime, they are exploring the public cloud to create a hybrid environment. Once their hardware becomes obsolete and offline, they will definitely consider the public cloud. Similarly, people who are still on-premises with legacy or Cisco systems will also consider the public cloud. They are in the existing environment and are just waiting for their hardware to reach the end of life. For the next expansion, they want to move to the cloud.
The initial setup is easy.
In a cloud environment, we need just to associate that business. If I have to build approximately 10 to 15 VMs, we have the templates. We have the AMI. We have everything in place. We need to just automate and place everything in the dashboard. It is very easy to customize.
I will recommend you to use it, at least explore what services they are offering, what features they are offering.
Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Amazon AWS provides a total solution and helps us to run applications.
The tool is a hosting platform that we can leverage to open servers. We can use it to build databases. We use cost management and high-performance capabilities of the tool.
Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities.
I have been using the solution for five to six years.
Amazon AWS has bugs. It is not a big issue since the product is a SaaS solution and fixes them.
My company has around 1,000 users who use the product daily.
I used Microsoft Azure before. I chose Amazon AWS since it has APIs that I can use for software development.
I rate the product's installation a nine out of ten. One resource is enough to handle the deployment.
We did the deployment in-house.
The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten.
I rate the product an eight out of ten.
I generally EC2 workloads. We use it to host our applications and provide our software service on the cloud. We integrate with EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service) to manage containerized applications.
EKS helps us manage our containerized applications on AWS. We use various AWS services for different functionalities, such as computing services, database storage, content delivery, etc.
AWS's security model, including IAM or security groups, has contributed to our organization's compliance. It manages authentication, permissions, and overall security posture, which helps us maintain compliance.
AWS has made our lives much easier. It simplifies workload management and operations.
The cloud-based nature of AWS is crucial for scaling our resources effortlessly. It's a key reason we chose AWS.
We find EKS particularly helpful for its ease of use and management of containerized applications.
Faster API response times and an improved console experience would be better. Enhanced performance across APIs and the console would streamline our workflows.
In future releases, improved compatibility and minimal downtime during upgrades would be significant enhancements.
I have been using it for seven years.
I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It's generally very reliable.
I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. No problem with scaling this product.
There are around 300 end users in my company using this solution.
AWS technical support is good in general.
Positive
The features, quality, and support are likely comparable to other products.
The initial setup is simple.
Pricing definitely isn't high; I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, with ten being expensive.
AWS pricing is quite competitive. AWS is cost-effective because it saves time. Faster deployments and testing make it very valuable. Pricing isn't the main thing; it's more about getting things done efficiently. Then, engineers can discover additional savings within AWS itself.
So, it's more flexible. We save a lot of time thanks to AWS
Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
It plays a pivotal role in data processing and application development. In our projects, we've harnessed the power of AWS for a range of applications. One key scenario involves building pipelines to process data collected from devices, such as audio and video footage. AWS services like Amazon Kinesis and Lambda functions were used in conjunction with other services like DynamoDB, SNS (Simple Notification Service), and SQS (Simple Queue Service). Another use case involves handling data from e-commerce websites. We collect and process this data using AWS Lambda functions, SNS, and Elasticsearch. The processed data is then fed into a separate application, which serves various marketing and analytical purposes.
The most valuable is ensuring the integrity of our written code through thorough verification. Also, we've leveraged AWS services like Redshift and Glue. Glue, in particular, is a potent tool that simplifies the ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) process. It streamlines tasks like table creation and data loading into Redshift, making the process more efficient and manageable.
There should be improvement in terms of creating databases of varying sizes which would provide flexibility.
I have been working with it for three years.
It offers good stability capabilities. We haven't encountered any issues or downtimes.
In terms of scalability and data security, AWS excels, which is why it's a prominent player in the market.
We receive data from SAP systems, which we process using Databricks. Within Databricks, our coding approach varies; sometimes we use SQL, and in other cases, particularly in certain projects, we employ PySQL and SpotsSQL. We then process this data, which might involve SQL Server, Oracle, or other databases. For ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes, we've worked with Data Factory. When dealing with data originating from SAP systems, which often includes unstructured or semi-structured data like JSON, we make use of a diverse toolset. This enables us to load data into databases such as SQL Server and Snowflake or any other required database.
The initial setup was straightforward.
The setup process was facilitated through CI/CD pipelines. Initially, we used the AWS CI/CD pipeline but later transitioned to GitLab because we encountered limitations with certain AWS CI/CD use cases. In GitLab, we found more flexibility, enabling us to execute specific functions or steps independently. In contrast, AWS CI/CD typically follows a more rigid sequence, where phases are executed sequentially from initialization to build and deployment.
The pricing may vary and is often influenced by marketing strategies.
It's a valuable tool, but working with AWS can be challenging. I would rate it nine out of ten.
We build business applications for our customers using Amazon AWS in 15 different industries.
Many of my customers use many cloud services together.
The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the high level of capabilities, cloud-native environment, developer-friendly, intuitive interface, and automation. The solution overall is easy to learn from the resources available.
The customization could improve. However, it depends on the customization needed.
To enhance its capabilities, Amazon AWS should improve its integration with other digital security platforms and solutions, especially those used by companies in domains, such as banking, financial services, and insurance. While Amazon AWS has its own solution, there are many other initial vendor companies that perform exceptionally well. Therefore, it is crucial for Amazon AWS to have better integration with those platforms and solutions, including how to host and integrate them with the rest of the Amazon AWS services. Although Amazon AWS has its strengths, it doesn't always work seamlessly for customers, making it a significant obstacle to migrating applications to Amazon AWS. Rather than focusing on developing new features, Amazon AWS could better serve its customers by supporting these existing solutions in the digital security space.
There are many excellent encryption solutions available, along with many other solutions. By supporting these solutions and offering easy integration, Amazon AWS can create a win-win situation for its customers.
I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately seven years.
When you have complex deployments, such as with more than two availability zones, there are reliability, and resiliency options that are complex to implement and expensive. Providing stability or more complex deployments is possible, but very expensive.
I rate the stability of Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.
We have more than 50,000 users using this solution in my organization. Everyone in our company is using the solution.
The solution is highly scalable.
I rate the scalability of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.
The support provided by Amazon AWS is highly responsive. We have a strong alliance with Amazon AWS, and we regularly interact with their teams. They conduct knowledge-sharing sessions for us and keep us informed about new features. They are always available to support us. They have helped us from the inception phase of any large engagement up to providing help in troubleshooting some problems. They are extremely helpful.
I rate the support of Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.
Positive
I have worked with Google Cloud Services and Microsoft Azure.
Amazon AWS is known for building many industry platforms, and companies often look to all three hyper scalers to help them build such platforms on Amazon AWS. Large consortia of companies collaborate on such initiatives. However, Google and Azure are more interested in partnering with and supporting industry-level consortiums and technology initiatives, while Amazon AMS sees it more as an engineering capability and expects developers to build everything from the ground up. Therefore, Amazon AMS may need to adjust its approach slightly in comparison to its competitors.
The simplicity of Amazon AWS depends on the engineering processes implemented by the client's organization. Setting up these processes may take some time, but the AWS SDK provided by Amazon is helpful. Moreover, integration with other tooling is also necessary.
Once the processes and platforms are configured, the execution becomes automatic. This has been successfully accomplished in many engagements where pipelines are run for tasks, such as provisioning new infrastructure and making multiple releases.
For a business with a small deployment and with minor features needed the process of implementation can take 30 minutes and in some instances less than 15 minutes. However, if it's a large release with multiple features, including verifications, it can take up to one and a half hours maximum. The more features added the longer the implementation will take.
In comparison to Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure, the database offered by Amazon AWS is relatively expensive. However, the database also offers rich features.
I rate the price of Amazon AWS a six out of ten.
If you compare Amazon AWS with other hyper scalers, such as Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS is the most sophisticated cloud development platform.
The amount of people for the maintenance of the solution depends on the engagement we have with our customers. Some of our customers are sophisticated with modern infrastructure and can handle most of the maintenance themself.
The engineering team responsible for development also handles maintenance, upgrades, and support without any differentiation. However, some customers still follow an older mindset, where a separate ops team is responsible for platform maintenance and operations.
One approach is to have a centralized model where a team of 20-30 members manages all the applications, including operations and maintenance. Alternatively, a distributed model may be used, where four or five different teams manage different aspects. However, on average, the team size for the entire IT organization is typically around 20-30 people.
I strongly recommend this solution to others.
I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.
I gave my rating of eight because the price of the feature is more expensive than the competitors.
The product is easy to use. Its availability and support are its biggest strengths.
IAM must be made simple and straightforward. It is a little bit complicated compared to GCP.
I have been using the solution for three to four years.
The product is stable.
The product is scalable.
My company had signed up for professional support. We did not have any issues with support. It would be really tough to reach out to the support team on a personal level. For personal users, I rate the support a three to four out of ten. For professional users, I rate it a nine out of ten.
We are also using Google Cloud Platform. The choice of the product depends on people’s familiarity and their inclination toward using a certain product.
The tool’s pricing is reasonable.
I would recommend the solution. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.
I work on the AWS - the AWS Lambda portions of the Amazon cloud.
It's a good cloud for beginners.
There is no downtime. The solution is reliable.
Deploying resources on AWS is fairly easy and more secure than any other cloud. That's what our initial impressions are.
Amazon AWS is very lame in the sense that it's into some sort of beginner stage stuff. Most of our customers prefer Azure Cloud over AWS. Azure has lots of features, especially on the identity side. It has integration with the social media built-in plugins. It has integration with a plethora of applications. It has that sort of an ecosystem. Amazon, on the other hand, on most of the integration side, there are applications in Java or there are customer-specific applications and therefore we have to do the development. This is in contrast to Microsoft Azure, where we get the ready-made plugins.
Our experience is AWS should be preferred for the financial sector where there are not very many changes. It's more minimal changes that come into play on the implementation side. We recommend Microsoft Cloud to most of our customers, especially when they want quick implementation and there are a plethora of things to integrate the cloud with.
With AWS, we feel it has a lot of improvement areas. It's a good cloud, however, if I compare it with Azure, Azure is more of a feature-rich cloud.
The initial setup can be a bit difficult.
I expect AWS to come up with more identity features. They should have a very robust identity federation system, like what Azure and maybe Google Cloud are offering. Identity has some sub-verticals, like single sign-on and multifactor authentication and federation with some on-premise systems like ADFS servers or LDAP directories. Those things are very difficult to configure in AWS. AWS should come up with more connectors and more robust and user-friendly IdAM systems so that we can reduce time. We should be able to implement our projects faster.
I've been using the solution for two to two and a half years at this point.
In terms of stability, the first impression is whatever services we have provisioned in the AWS cloud, we've never caught any issues where we needed to reach out to the Amazon support team. There is no downtime, for example. There are no application crashes. We don't need to plan any high availability or disaster recovery for any of our servers. In regards to that, Amazon is doing a very good job of offering good performance and reliability.
We've never needed to solicit the help of Amazon technical support, In contrast, in the case of Microsoft, we definitely needed their help.
Right now we are working on three clouds actually, Azure, AWS, and Google and we have SAP Cloud in the pipeline as well.
The initial setup is kind of difficult. It's not just users going to Amazon and buying it from an Amazon account. You have to do a lot of configurations.
On a scale of one to five, one being easy and five being hard, I'd rate the implementation process at a four.
We don't buy the clouds. We give them to the customers and our customers buy the tenants, the subscriptions. They are aware of the license documents with Amazon and the other cloud vendors. Once we have the subscription of a customer, we do the technical implementation.
We don't get into procurement or subscription renewals or product updates or anything like that. We are more on the technical side.
We were doing some research on Oracle Cloud. Whether we are going to build the practice on Oracle Cloud or not, that's the call that has to be taken by my leadership.
My job role is as a Cloud Security Architect. I prepare solutions and I sell them to the customers. My work primarily involves working on identity systems. I primarily work on the identity federation side. You have identities and disparate sources, and we prefer to have a single identity source using federations and then we prepare solutions around it and sell them to our customers. Those kinds of solutions are the ones I work in.
My advice for first-time users is, if you wish to migrate your private data center to a private cloud where you have servers like VPN servers, radio servers, you have servers for your own applications, whether it's Windows, Linux, Unix, or ADFS, it's better to go for an AWS cloud. However, if you are looking for identity Federation or identity provisioning, then you need to go for a Microsoft Cloud.
I'll rate AWS at a seven out of ten due to the fact that it's very secure. It has very good migration categories for the on-premises servers and applications to the AWS private cloud. I can't rate it ten out of ten due to the lack of IdAM features I've seen, and AWS has less of a user base as it's not very user-friendly. This is where Azure scores a lot higher for me. It's very user-friendly and it's feature-rich, actually. If AWS can develop a more feature-rich offering, it will be on par with Azure.