Amazon AWS Reviews

AWS makes deployment and management of infrastructure easier. We are using so many features, including Lambda, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Container Service, EC2 instances, and Landing Zone. We rely heavily on AWS, and we're constantly taking advantage of new features as they come out to see how they can add value to the business. 

AWS's containerization is the most useful feature for us. 

I'd like to see AWS implement consolidated billing for businesses operating under one group. We want to consolidate the functionalities but keep the billing separate. That is a challenge we've faced, and I feel it's something they can improve on. For example, maybe you have three businesses that are operating under one group, and you want each entity to have a separate bill for the respective workload that they're using. But in terms of technical expertise, you want to consolidate the technical support and function of the three accounts. That's an area where AWS is struggling.

I've been using Amazon AWS for about four or five years.

AWS is stable.

AWS is scalable. We're serving close to 7,000 or 8,000 end-users with it.

AWS support is good.

AWS is pay as you go.

We reviewed the main three cloud providers: GCP, Azure, and AWS.

I rate AWS 9.5 out of 10. I would recommend it. 

The scalability and security of Amazon AWS are the most valuable features.

There are multiple operational and administrative services on AWS, I am expecting to see an integrated single platform of all the services so that it will be easier for the administrators to monitor and manage.

We are resellers of the production services of AWS. I have been working with Amazon AWS for almost 8 years.

The AWS products are stable.

The environment is stable. Every time a new feature is introduced, it advances the capabilities. Once the product is deployed, you can scale up easily.

Technical support has been very good.

The initial set up of AWS is easy and not complex.

The pricing is reasonable and comparable to similar services when run on-premise.

All the services and features provided by AWS are good. They are always improving their features.

I recommend implementing the products on Amazon Web Services. It is a stable environment and mature cloud platform. I would rate the product an 8 out of 10.

I've used it to create some internal projects for my organization, particularly for designing the infrastructure of those projects.

One feature I find most valuable is the easy deployment by using the channel model for  serverless architecture. Another feature I find valuable is the versatility of the service S3 because it allows you to give permissions to describe the users from their own accounts, from external users, or external accounts.

On the console, they used to have some shortcuts making this solution easier to work with, but now we have been dealing with so many problems on the console, and some of the options are not very useful in my perspective, so they should bring back those options that make things easier to run some of the services.

Most of the time the options are pre-selected, or you have to go with the default settings, but from my perspective, there are some services which are now more complicated to use than before.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the future is more integration with public repositories, though some use their own repositories for security purposes, but I think it'll be easier to deploy services through public repositories.

I've been using this solution for almost four years now.

This solution is stable. I've been using it for a long time and have only seen an outage in one of the regions. It's a good solution.

The scalability of this solution is good.

The technical support of AWS is very good. When I need something, they reach out to me fast.

The initial setup was straightforward. The complexity of the setup will depend on the number of services e.g. it's something that involves a lot of services, it could get complex, but for a complex setup, you could use things like transformation or Terraform because they will enable you to use infrastructure as a code to make it easier. There's a lot of things to configure.

Licensing of this solution is paid on a yearly basis.

I evaluated Microsoft Azure.

This was deployed on the cloud. I don't remember which version because I didn't deploy it. I was not the person running the project of implementing AWS, but I know the client used it, but I don't know which version.

It's not so difficult to use because there's a lot of tutorials.

I'm not completely sure about the number of AWS users in our organization. We have a partnership with them so we have some accounts, but we don't completely have our load on AWS. We are mostly on Azure. Our main server is on Azure. On AWS, we mostly have some internal projects and services, but most of the main load is on Azure.

We have a small workload on AWS. Sometimes we use it to deploy some of our best projects. We use it on some internal projects. It's a random thing so it could be 1,000 users or 50 users. I'll say approximately 200 to 500 users.

We don't require too many people for deploying this solution because our projects are proof of concepts. Up to ten people from different departments would be needed for deployment if it's a business requirement e.g. people from Approvals and Projects, etc.

As for increasing AWS usage, the organization sometimes thinks of moving some of the load to AWS because of good pricing, because currently, our main streams are on Azure, but it's not a sure thing.

I'm unsure if there's any additional cost aside from the need to pay the license annually because I don't directly manage it.

My advice to organizations looking into implementing AWS, especially if they're going to use it on a big scale, is to take advantage of AWS' organization model to make integration with their policies easier. It will also make administration easier for the different accounts, departments, and structure of the organizations thinking of moving to AWS.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.

We are using the solution for our core applications and our core infrastructure.

The product offers a lot of functionality. 

Our vendor who provides us a specific core application uses AWS and it's just simple for us if we use it too. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has been issue-free. It's very stable and the performance is good.

The solution can get to be a little expensive. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now. 

Technical support is good. We have had no issues with them. We are satisfied with their service.

We also use Microsoft Azure. 

The initial implementation process is pretty simple and easy. It's not complex or overly difficult. A company shouldn't have any issues with the deployment process. 

The costs could always be lowered.

How often we pay can vary, depending on the exact service. We pay, for example, both yearly and monthly.

As a cloud-based solution, we are using the latest version all the time. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

Our primary use case of AWS, for most projects, is for hosting on AWS and developing locally, as well as testing some AWS environments. We are mostly using this platform from a developer point of view. AWS is our cloud platform by choice. 

One of the most valuable things about it, besides the stability, is that you can forget about infrastructure because you're just doing it on AWS. I remember the times before AWS and other cloud solutions existed, and it was a huge pain to get real hardware, put it inside, configure everything, report everything, and do a scale. It was very, very difficult compared to how it is now. Not even just AWS, but what all these cloud providers are doing, I would say, is a huge advancement in technology. 

AWS could be improved with more integration, but I can see that they're developing these features and working very hard on their platform. 

I have been working with AWS for a few years. 

Amazon AWS is very stable. 

One of the major points for AWS is the scalability that comes with it. You can monitor it really well, and you can even adjust down, or sometimes up. What this technology allows is very nice. 

AWS is predominantly used in most of the projects that we have. In my organization, there are thousands of users who are using AWS. 

I have never personally contacted tech support. 

There isn't really an installation for AWS, but you will need certain certificates to download the interface. I generated some certificates, put them on my machine, and then used them to connect to AWS services. 

It depends on the project, but there is usually only one guy needed for deployment. For bigger, more complex platforms, you may need two or three guys to deploy AWS. 

I implemented AWS myself. 

You pay for a license, and that's how you get your own account. These are usually not individual licenses, but rather for a group of people. I think these licenses come at some volume, but I don't know many details about the licensing. 

I rate AWS a five out of ten, but it's mainly because I don't feel very experienced in AWS. I have gone to the console many times and seen many features that I have never used. I'm sure I can learn quickly, though, because there is a lot of information shared on the internet about how to use it—there are a lot of resources that you can use to learn, and there are a lot of features available on AWS. They're working very hard on their platform, and I can only see their usage growing in the future. 

I would certainly recommend AWS to others. 

I use the solution for deploying some applications that use cloud computing.

It offers a lot of tools, which we leverage. 

At the moment I'm using Lambda service and also AC2 machines - as a platform as a service and infrastructure as a service.

The pricing model is good. It's pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use. 

The solution offers a lot of very helpful documentation. There's also a great community that surrounds it that is quite helpful if you have questions or want to learn something. 

Personally, I need to improve myself in terms of the knowledge I have around the product. My goal is to maybe get certified in order to understand it better. It would be helpful if they would be able to provide me with more certification information. 

It's a good platform. I don't have any issues with it at the moment. 

It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time. 

I've used the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution is stable. We have many items deployed in AWS and we haven't had any issues. there are no bugs or glitches. It's problem-free.

AWS provides us with a lot of tools for deploying automatically when we are working, for example, in a new feature. We have options for automatic deployments and don't have issues with size.

There's a lot of great documentation and community support. I'm learning a lot and can find any answers I need there. 

I'm working with AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Computing right now.

I work with my customer's solutions and I deploy into AWS to provide the end product for my customers. I don't directly deal with AWS implementations themselves. 

The pricing is good and it's set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's not overly expensive. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd highly recommend the solution to other users. It's one of the best cloud options out there right now. 

I'd 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 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. 

I am using it for enterprise warehousing. I am using it for web development, data warehousing, and also for building apps.

I am using its latest version. In terms of deployment, it is a platform as a service.

Macie is great. It is a service that makes recommendations on a data layer for cybersecurity. It is a great service.

Its elasticity is good, and I haven't come across any problems with it. So far, everything has been good.

One thing that Azure offers that I think is good is Migrate appliance. So, Azure has a migrate appliance that allows you to run against workloads to determine the cost, preparedness, and scalability. I haven't found a similar feature in AWS. That kind of service would be great on AWS too if you could point it to the data center.

I have been using this solution for well over five years.

I have not had any performance issues.

It's very easy to scale. Its elasticity is good. If you want to scale up or down, you can. You can scale out. There is no problem at all. That's one of the features that I like about it.

We have less than 50 people who are using this solution.

I've not used their tech support yet.

We didn't use a different solution previously. They're the first.

You need to know what you're doing. I know they're trying to make it easy. Some things are easy. Some things you have to know what you're doing.

It seems to be reasonable. It's the first one that I've used as a cloud platform, so they've set the benchmark for me, and now, I'm comparing everything else to them.

I would advise others to just plan out what they are looking for in terms of use cases. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of 10.