Amazon AWS Reviews

We primarily use the solution for the infrastructure. We use it specifically for hosting the infrastructure and hosting our analytics database.

So far, the stability is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's one of its great selling features.

The performance of AWS is excellent.

The cost-effectiveness is something we appreciate. It isn't too expensive for us to leverage AWS.

The overall convenience and the ease to use could be improved. Right now, for example, we still have an integrator that helps us. They help us do the so-called hand-holding to get us started. Once we start, we can train up staff and we can manage most of the operations ourselves. It's just that first little bit that's difficult to handle alone.

We've been using the solution for a few years at this point.

The stability of AWS is excellent. We don't have to worry about it crashing or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches to contend with. It's reliable and we've enjoyed its stability thus far.

The scalability of the product is very, very good. It's one of the great benefits of the cloud. You don't really have to worry about hitting a wall. It can expand pretty well as much as you need it to.

We have about 30 or so people on the solution right now. They are mostly our analytical team and some business users.

We have plans to continue usage and we may also increase usage in the future.

Our team has used technical support in the past. I haven't myself, personally, however, my team called them for technical questions. We tend to use either AWS or our system integrator when it comes to answering some troubleshooting issues.

The support could be better. It's my understanding that they need to take some sort of certification, and that there is a bit of a learning curve. They're not bad, however, as I mentioned, they could be more proficient. While some seem to be certified, others need to polish their skillsets.

We did use another solution previously. We used Horizon before. We also use some other data pipeline, however, they were more of a niche market cloud provider, unlike Amazon, which is more widespread and has a broader scope.

We are using it on the cloud basis. We don't have any integration on-premises. We found the installation, in that sense, somewhat easy, although there were some moving parts that we still needed a bit of help with. 

We had an integrator help us a bit. They did some hand-holding to make sure everything got up and running properly.

The pricing of the solution is quite good. It's very reasonable and very affordable.

That said, I don't deal with billing and licensing directly and therefore don't have the exact numbers in relation to how much we pay.

We're using the latest version of the solution. The cloud is instantaneously upgrading us to the latest version.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. We've been pretty happy with the product so far.

Overall, I would rate it at an eight out of ten. If it offered better support and had a more user-friendly setup I'd likely rate it higher.

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 like how the scalability is kind of built-in. It has a dynamic scaling capacity which is very helpful. 

The dashboard allows us to configure the amount of storage we might need — It's sort of predictive. It predicts the kind of consumption that we are anticipating, which is a very helpful feature. These are some of the things that we gravitate to. 

They're pretty economical as well, regarding bite and gigabytes storage. They have a very economical approach compared to other storage services.

It's not our favorite for sure. Some of their well-listed services are not super configurable — at least to the extent that we would like to configure and customize them. Some of them are not that considerable as per our requirements. We have tried Dropbox and some other solutions as well, including One Drive, Dropbox, etc. It seems as if some of those solutions can be configured and customized a little more — like it's built into their fabric. AWS doesn't have that feel, but understandably, as they're such a behemoth.

They still haven't managed to crack some of the advanced think features, which are important especially if you're dealing with Mongo or any of the databases which are sort of non-sequel — like non-relational databases.

They have some sync related problems that we had noticed that we are trained to work around. Those are some of the things that our development team is struggling with.

I have been using Amazon AWS since 2018. 

So far, so good. It has met every challenge we have provided. It has worked. Never failed. We have never experienced any kind of downtime. We are very happy so far.

It's not like we have attempted a really sprawling, multi-talented, multi-national kind of integration, so I should not be commenting very much on it. To date, whatever we have tried, we have never faced any problems.

The technical support is okay. It takes a while to get their attention; maybe they are small players — they have bigger fish to fry. I'm not very involved in talking to technical support, our engineering team deals with them.

We have a team of around four or five engineers who handle all maintenance-related issues.

Regarding the initial setup, it took a while for us to get up to speed.

It was fairly complicated actually. It doesn't have many serverless services. Some of them (if the client is actually paying for them) need to be optimized. You also have to be sure to only use the ones that are absolutely the barest minimum or at least the most optimum set of solutions for the client, as it adds to their month to month costs. To configure and to decide what services to buy and what services to build as microservices and how to orchestrate those microservices in the middle base, that took us a while to sort out.

Considering the kind of services they provide and the space they play in, compared to other solutions like Microsoft and Google, I think they've done a pretty good job with their pricing. The pricing tiers; I like the way that they have dynamically structured the pricing mechanism; however, for small players, it's pretty expensive.

They're a successful company so I suppose many clients are willing to pay that kind of money for the services that they provide.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS a rating of seven.

The ease of use is the solution's most valuable aspect for us at this point.

You can manage everything from the console, which is very convenient. 

The high level of technology of the database services being served to the customers is impressive. 

The security is excellent. We feel very protected by the solution.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The product is highly scalable.

There is very good documentation available to users for troubleshooting, et cetera.

From a technology standpoint, the solution is almost perfect. We don't feel that anything is lacking in that sense.

The feedback we are getting from our customers, especially here in Turkey where the exchange rate fluctuates regularly, is that the solution is quite expensive. Other cloud competitors are less costly. From our country's point of view, I would say that it needs to be cheaper.

When the solution faces downtime, it can be for hours or half a day. This is far too long.

I would say that I started using AWS around 2017.

The solution is stable. That said, there are some instances that some of the services in some of the regions might go down. The downtime sometimes will last longer than you expected. We expect that occasionally the downtime maybe a few minutes or half an hour. That's not always the case. Sometimes it can be hours. Sometimes it can even be half a day. For us, the downtime is a problem. 

The solution is highly scalable. You can create thousands of servers in minutes or something like that, so it's very scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease using this solution.

The types of businesses we typically deal with are rather small. 

I haven't used technical support. I haven't yet had a need to. Therefore, I can't discuss anything in regards to their helpfulness or knowledgeability. That speaks to how good their product has been overall.

That said, if you run into problems, most of the issues that you are having in terms of technical difficulties can be solved within the documentation.

The solution is very easy to install. If you start short-term with the database services, and if you then get the Web Services, it's very easy. A company shouldn't have any trouble setting everything up. It's not complex.

I tend to manage the solution for my clients once it is installed.

Due to currency fluctuations in Turkey, we find the product to be on the more expensive side. There are other, cheaper options on the market.

I'm a consultant. If the customer wants an AWS solution or AWS consultancy, I give these services to them. If they want some local provider, I also work with them.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

Most of my clients don't know the technology and don't want to get into deep technical knowledge in terms of the solution itself. They don't want to manage AWS. They just want to let someone manage their infrastructure and AWS services for them. There aren't too many large companies dealing with AWS on a massive scale in Turkey. I don't really deal with larger entities anyway.

So long as an organization's focus is not on pricing, I would recommend the solution.

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

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 are providing a platform as a service to our customers, where we do not manage their end applications.

We do not manage their end workloads, and we do not have visibility into what applications they are running. We are just providing them with hosting services.

We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering.

We are mainly using VPC, EC2 instances, a bit of S3 and NAT Gateways, and NAT Instances.

The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions. It's a bit complicated to implement and to understand. It requires a lot of heavy lifting. 

I am not exactly sure if we implemented it poorly, or it is the same.

Cross-validation and logging-in are areas that need improvement.

There are many variables involved in pricing the service in AWS and overall, the pricing is a bit on the higher side. If the variable in pricing could be simplified, that will also help. Sometimes, we don't use these cost optimization tools.

I have been using Amazon AWS for six months.

We just started specifically for this engagement. 

Prior to this, I had worked on AWS in my earlier engagements for quite some time.

We haven't faced any challenges. It's seamless.

Our company is, I would say, a mid-size company. The customer for whom we are onboarding on AWS, their end-users are also from a mid-size company.

Technical support is good.

We are loving this solution so far, and it has certainly reduced the time it takes to stack up new applications. 

Also, we are using it for the first time, for this customer, and they too, are loving it. Specifically, the new application launches and testing. I think they're simply having a good time with it. 

They experiment with things and tear it off when it is not needed, so they are enjoying it.

I would certainly recommend this to others, for sure.

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. Our experience has been great!

The initial setup was straightforward to a large extent.

We are continually migrating services, as per the client's requirement. But I think a mid-size application consisting of 10 servers can take two to three weeks to get onboarded on AWS. This is starting from discovery, planning, migration, and then going live.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. 

You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece.

There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.

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.

We are hosting some education servers and web servers.

We have used Amazon AWS for a very large scale of server deployment. Also, we have run some tests using resources from AWS EC2. We don't have to go out investing for that resource, we just use them for a short period of time and we pay only for that usage. It has helped us scale quickly, and save a lot of money instead of buying those services.

The features with Amazon AWS that I have found most valuable are its flexibility and high availability. These are the most important and attractive points for me.

In terms of what could be improved, I also use Google Cloud GCP and AWS cannot directly use the Azure EC2 consult. They could add that feature. Direct connection to the EC2 console server would be very useful.

I am certified on AWS from the cloud provider side. 

I use the RDS, Relational Database Solution, and the EC2 technology on AWS.

I have been using it for more than four years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable. I have read a lot of reports from third parties, and they also have a robust testing methodology. And from my own experience, I can say that it's really, really very stable.

In terms of scalability, the sky is the limit. There is no limit for scalability. If you have money to spend, you get whatever resource you want.

We had some issues and we had pretty good support. They even created a special attach for us to solve our problem and they responded very quickly. If you buy the additional support, the support is really good.

The initial setup is easier now. Four years ago it was harder, but nowadays it is a lot easier, because a lot of boiler plate set ups are done for you. So you can just start using it right away, even if you are not experienced. 

Four years ago, it was not like this, but it's better now.

In terms of price, it is more expensive than other cloud providers, but it is worth it. It is not that much more, so you can go with it. It's not too bad. It's more expensive than the others, but it's bearable.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate Amazon AWS a nine.

To bring that up a bit, as I mentioned, I would like to have a direct connection to the EC2 server console. That's why I'm just not giving a 10.

For anyone interested in using Amazon AWS, I would advise them to read the online documentation. It's very clear and shows you step by step how to use the system. If you need more advanced features, you can find a lot of resources on the internet and on their website. So if you want to use a public cloud, I strongly advise using AWS.