Amazon AWS Reviews

I use Amazon AWS to host services for my clients, as well as creating SMTP services for them. These are the main two use cases. AWS offers a wide range of services, but I do not use them all.

AWS has a lot of flexibility, which is great.

Recently tried the boot on the desktop, which is where you create a virtual desktop, on a laptop for example. You provide this, and you can use a laptop on the cloud and have everything safe, without having to purchase an expensive laptop.

When I tried with another company, from Azure, which uses the same thing, that with the boot as desktop they had some work needed to make some changes to the AWS desktop. They are not as flexible or powerful as a platform as Azure on this subject.

Previously, they had great VoIP software that they used in AWS, and when I created an account, they didn't have the option to assign too many numbers, local numbers, that could be used for hosting.

In terms of improvement, they should try to give more emphasis to the VoIP system.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

You can deploy and create any number of virtual machines to meet your needs.

Amazon AWS is very stable.

When I'm setting up SMTP servers for clients. They use SMTP as the main platform, but for example, on their CRM, and to be honest, I never go back to that to check for any issues from the day one that I finish the task and provide everything to the CRM developers to proceed with the integration.

We have over 60 companies in our portfolio, and I would estimate that half of them use AWS services.

Going through the chats has left me a little disappointed. It's taking far too long, and I have to come back with questions. The reason could be that they have too many departments internally, so they assign a ticket from one department to another, and it takes a long time to complete the task and provide an accurate solution.

I'm using both Microsoft Azure and AWS at the same time.

I am a Microsoft Azure certified technician, and some of my clients have asked me about some potential within the product. Based on my research, I discovered that this project can be easily designed using AWS rather than Microsoft Azure. This is why I'm learning more about AWS. It is similar to that of Microsoft Azure, and I'm using it, that we can, say, shut down Microsoft Azure completely and then send all of my clients to AWS.

Half of them are AWS, half are Microsoft Azure, and sometimes there are internal IT departments, which need to follow this path, to create the architecture on Microsoft Azure or AWS based on their architecture.

They are difficult to set up. Before you can start using AWS, you must first read the documentation and learn a lot about it.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

It is not very easy, and difficult to complete some of the tasks.

They have a pay-as-you-go subscription. You pay only for the time you use the service. By service, I mean that they are not frequently used by clients. It's the best idea because they are very expensive to them because if it's a small company and you have the option of pay as you go as a solution, it would be less expensive, and better for the company in terms of saving money.

However, if some large clients, for example, use AWS as a hosting provider and compare their prices with other hosting providers, other hosting providers are more affordable. 

I believe that a pay-as-you-go solution is very inexpensive, but not for monthly or fixed prices.

I am a partner and reseller.

I would advise them, before they use the account before they open an account with Amazon, to do their account around just to learn a bit about that solution and then start using it, because it will take a long time to understand how that platform works, how you're going to create a VM on there, how you can create an SMTP.

It is not a simple procedure that we point to and then follows some steps to complete. You must be familiar with information technology. You must have at least basic IT knowledge of a hosting site. This is a platform, and before they begin using it, they must check a number of things and understand how they will proceed.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We're a native AWS customer and a provider as well. We have multiple solutions running in there, and we are also doing infrastructure as a code and infrastructure as a service. For example, we can offer you lower prices than the price that you would pay for an AWS instance because we are an official partner of Amazon. So, we are taking all the advantages of what we currently have with AWS. 

It is being used for ECM. In terms of deployment, from an AWS perspective, it is partly self-developed based on Terraform, and we are also using services like S3, S9, and all the things we have in AWS for DNS, but it is highly automated. When a customer comes in and says that they need an instance clustered with certain options and a certain amount of service, it's usually firing up one line of code, and then everything gets set up, including the infrastructure.

We're working with its newer version.

Scalability is one of the biggest benefits we have.

We have a very good approach internally with what we have developed. It involved overcoming some hurdles regarding the single point of truth or single point of configuration, which is sometimes not that easy for AWS. There are dashboards and you have your web service, but bringing all these together and orchestrating is sometimes quite difficult.

My estimate is six years, but it might be way earlier. We ramped up way early with AWS on the market and developed together with them.

It is very scalable. Our customers are from every corner you can imagine. There is no specific type of customers we are serving.

We have a direct relationship with AWS. We are not running with the usual support with AWS. We have other possibilities and are directly integrated. 

It is easy. With our solution, it's really a piece of cake. Even my seven-year-old would be able to set up a cluster with high availability, as long as I tell her what to enter.

It is quite expensive in my very personal opinion. Going on-prem in a data center is, for sure, not as expensive as going to AWS, but when it comes to a point where you are raising and growing, it simply makes a lot of sense to stay in AWS. It is awesome in that way. I am not aware of any extra costs.

Azure is something that we are currently looking into as a second option, but there are no concrete actions planned.

It boils down to two points. The first point would be to have correct planning. You need to know what you want to do and you need to be familiar with what you can do in AWS. The second very important point is that you need very stable and very good monitoring of your AWS instances. This is mandatory because if you fire up a very expensive environment and forget it over weeks, you need to pay for that. I've seen a lot of companies struggling to get an overview of all these AWS machines. It starts by tagging and so on.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the EC2 instance for web applications with CDN Networks.

AWS Cloudfront is the official reference for the Global content delivery network (CDN) which significantly reduces latency or slow loading times.

There is a feature called Kinesis, which has to do with image processing. There are a few artificial intelligence tools that Amazon AWS should improve on.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately five years.

I have found Amazon AWS to be stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable.

The technical support has been challenging. I have found more tickets are being placed and the availability of the agents has been limited for some of the team members.

We selected Amazon AWS because it was the most mature at the time. It was the initial cloud provider. Then Google and Microsoft also came up with Azure and TensorFlow. TensorFlow is catching up with a few code web programming tools, and that is a point of interest as well as image processing.

In a future release, the solution could improve on the IoT integrations and API access.

The initial setup of Amazon AWS is complex due to how infrastructure is set up in different organizations.

For the initial 12 months, the solution is reasonably priced. On enterprise license contracts where you negotiate, have been reasonable too.

I would encourage the student package for someone who is starting out, they can get acquainted with the interface and the tools available.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We are both a user and a provider of services to some of our clients. We are not official partners, but we provide regular services to set up our clients' infrastructure on AWS. We deploy their projects there with their own account so that we can hand over technical ownership whenever they need it. As a result, they can continue to provide their services to other consultants. we offer these services to set up their systems and their services.

We use Amazon AWS mostly for typical hosting for applications, some emails, queuing services, and databases most of the time.

I am not sure what features they'd like.

AWS has large community support. You are never stuck with anything if something doesn't work in time.

We don't have any issues for the time being, because I intend to use this in a limited, not exhaustive, manner. For the time being, we're fine with whatever we're doing.

The billing should be more competitive.

I have been using Amazon AWS for more than two years.

As AWS is online we are always using the most current version. We have some virtual machines that you create based on the version when you initialize them, but the services that you use on a daily basis are always the most recent version.

We have a limited number of users and use standard services.

There have been no issues. The support is good.

There are no issues at the moment.

We were hosting on bare metal servers. Then we moved on to VPS servers, which were managed by our technical staff. And now we're utilizing cloud services.

That technical management part for the multiple VPS, as well as for ourselves and our client, is taking a long time to maintain and everything. As a result, we went to manage services.

These are some additional options. I've seen that Azure has the best cloud dashboard, but the billing and other features are very difficult to use. The same as any other cloud service. The documentation is far superior.

The installation is straightforward.

Cloudflare and other services are developing more affordable solutions. They provide a much cheaper alternative to Amazon's S3 storage buckets. That's something that could be improved.

This should be comparable to the other options on the market.

Billing for cloud services can be difficult at times. In the VPS, you only have quota-based billing management, but in the cloud, it's as if every bit and byte and every I/O operation is metered, and your bills can be surprisingly high when you've published something that can attract a lot of traffic, which is one catch.

We researched Microsure and Google Firebase, but we are not using these solutions.

I'm not an expert. I don't have any advice at the moment, but whenever they're looking to host some applications, when there's a lot of traffic or bandwidth, they should think about it carefully. 

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We use AWS for multiple purposes, such as developing APIs and API integration using API Gateway. We use API Gateway, Python Combinator, Lambda Glue, and ETL Process. We have used EMR for big data processing. If we need a tool for computing, we go with the Lamda DMS. There are many services available in AWS that meet our needs.

The feature that's most valuable depends on your use case. Elasticsearch is good for testing and DynamoDb for database applications. There are so many things I could name, but you have to go with the service that is right for the use case you are looking for.

AWS has room for improvement on the Kubernetes side. I would like to go a little deeper into the Kubernetes target, Elastic, inner system, and all that. The EKS, target, and all these areas need to be improved, but that is not my key area because I am mostly working on the application side. However, I sometimes still need to work with Kubernetes container management.

I've been using AWS for the last seven years.

AWS has "11 9s" service availability, which means the service is available 99.99999999999 percent of the time. 

I would rate AWS support four out of five. They're good. I can activate cases on the technical calendar through AWS development support. I've gotten a lot of support through AWS Blue. 

Positive

The deployment complexity depends on which template you're using: AWS Terraform or CloudFormation. It's easiest to deploy services via Terraform, so you can go with that. That is the most straightforward way, and you can do all automation within Terraform.

I rate AWS nine out of 10. Everything is moving to the cloud now, and AWS covers a lot of services, including computing, networking, storage, IoT, and management, and they are good in every way.

They face competition from GCP and Azure, but Azure is entirely a Microsoft stack, so people will go with that when they're working with Microsoft solutions. It is a little cheaper than AWS. In the end, the cloud you choose depends on the use case. It's up to the customer.

The customer can deploy their application on Amazon AWS instead of taking care of their infrastructure.

The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are ease of use, deployment, and short lead time. If you are using an on-premise solution, you need to wait for the hardware, and nowadays it is very difficult, the lead time becomes very long. We propose to our customers to use Amazon AWS because it is very easy, no need to wait for hardware delivery.

If Amazon AWS can offer more self-paced learning tools, on their website, on CBT,  it'll be easier for more people to familiarize themselves with their service. Especially when they are delivering new services from time to time. Educational tools that can help users familiarize themselves with their service. It would be great.

I know they have a Free Tier service, but they need to register their credit cards. Some of my colleagues have concerns. If the usage exceeds a certain value, they exceeded the Free Tier usage time and they will start charging your credit card. My colleagues forgot about the usage and credit card payments. They needed to pay for the additional amounts which they used on top of the Free Tier usage. If Amazon AWS could improve the free service model to be more user-friendly in a way of not using a credit card, that would be great.

For personal learning, you also need to register your credit card. You need to be careful or you will have to pay.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately two years.

Amazon AWS is stable. However, they have had a few outages but nothing very serious.

Amazon AWS is quite scalable. And they have a lot of auto-scaling functions for their VMs.

I don't have direct information of the support from Amazon AWS because sometimes we are relying on Amazon's partner, not directly contacting Amazon AWS support teams. We need to have some support plan with Amazon AWS, otherwise, they will not provide direct email or technical support.

The length of time and difficulty of the implementation depends on the scale and the complexity of the project.

For the implementation of Amazon AWS, having two to three engineers focusing on it would be ideal. Small to middle size companies, don't have dedicated teams or engineers for a particular service.

Amazon AWS is offering different pricing, and saving plans, it's very easy for a customer to consider the Amazon AWS service.

Amazon AWS charges based on the user usage and some software license, such as the OS are included in their monthly charge. The transparency is quite sufficient, the customer knows what they're paying for.

The usage fees are an OPEX and they are offered monthly or annually.

I have evaluated Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud.

I would recommend Amazon AWS to others.

Amazon AWS are the market leaders in the public cloud service and after them, we have Microsoft Azure, and maybe Google Cloud.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

My primary use case was as a place to migrate legacy systems.

AWS has reduced our costs and maintenance requirements. It also allows us to control our load in peak times and automatically increases or decreases your capacity as required. 

The features I have found most valuable are S3 buckets and Lambda services.

An area for improvement would be API creation - a lot of tools are provided, but there can be issues with integrating them. There is also a cost underlay, in that at the end of the day, some costs are not in the picture, so AWS needs to improve its costing toolset.

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability of AWS has improved over time and can now be well managed.

This solution is scalable to any limit.

I previously used Rackspace Openstack but switched because it required more manpower than AWS, and AWS is more cost-effective and tolerant.

The setup was somewhat complex. It was done in three phases over a year.

This solution reduced our overhead cost by 30-40%.

Technical support is expensive to use.

I evaluated Oracle Cloud, but it was more complex to use and provided a smaller toolset than AWS.

This solution is one of the top tools available for legacy migration. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

It's a powerful infrastructure as a service solution, IaaS. It offers compute resources, storage, networking, and databases to quickly create your cloud infrastructure.

Apart from the infrastructure as a service, the AWS Lambda, which functions as the service FaaS, is really powerful. 

It's a powerful way of quickly assembling or developing applications, which can be scaled immensely and also at a fraction of the cost because you are charged per the execution time of each function. If you are writing a small function as an AWS Lambda function, then you are paying only for those milliseconds for the time at which it runs. 

It's a very cost-efficient way of running applications in the cloud rather than running an EC2-compute instance, which is charged by the hour or by the minute. You typically have to keep the EC2 instance updating all of the time. Whereas in functions, a function is invoked only when a user is calling it. Or, the front-end is calling the backend function. Lambda is very powerful and it is also typically used as a mobile backend. Essentially, it's a very strong API-based backend for mobile solutions.

It has many choices of computer options, storage options, and even database options.

It's flexible, you can run any kind of workload on the infrastructure.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. 

The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable. It is highly reliable.

It is highly scalable. It's a very powerful platform.

In my previous organization, there were 12 people using AWS.

We have used technical support to an extent, and it's fine. We are satisfied with technical support.

I have used Azure Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and I have a bit of experience with Google Cloud as well.

You have to create an EC2 instance, which is the compute. We have to create that to get the compute platform, but you have to install your application. You have to patch the operating system and you have to upgrade your operating system.

The operating system and upwards is the customer's responsibility in an EC2 instance.

It's a straightforward installation because it's your application and your operating system just like you are on-premises, but you will do it on the cloud through a browser or through a CLI, a command-line tool.

The deployment timeline depends on how complex your application is. Because you are getting the platform from AWS as a computing platform, you have to install your application. It depends on the complexity of your application, so it varies.

Depending on how much you are using it, determines the maintenance. Typically, you will need different roles, you will need administrators who operate this environment, and if you are also developing applications, you would need developers.

The installation and deployment can be done by yourself.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

We plan to continue using this solution, and I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.