Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store) Reviews

If the instance memory is too high, we must attach EBS volumes. I use the solution to attach and detach volumes.

The tool has different types of volumes, like SSD and HDD. We can attach multiple attachments to EBS volumes and Elastic Volumes. The tool has many features. We can integrate EBS with the EC2 instances manually through the Amazon portal.

The initial setup is not easy.

I used the solution six months ago.

The tool is stable.

It is difficult for freshers to set up the tool. We must understand the purpose and the requirements before we do the setup.

I am using Azure Storage.

For EFS, we mount some storage for the EC2 instance. There are many features in VPC, like internet gateway and NAT gateway. I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

At our company, we use it for data storage. We work on Cloud Clusters, so we use EBS as the underlying storage.

The most valuable feature is its scalability. I can easily scale the block from terabytes to gigabytes.

There are not many technical things that need improvement in EBS. It has a very long history and is AWS's first product. Its main flaw is the costliness.

I have been working with EBS for three years. 

EBS is stable. I have not seen any fluctuations when it comes to its stability. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of EBS a nine out of ten.

I work with Amazon Web Service in the China region. I'm satisfied with how fast the technical team usually responds.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy. I would give it a nine out of ten in terms of ease of use. It only takes a few minutes to deploy, sometimes even less.

We deploy EBS in two ways. One is on the AWS console where there are options to select from and we do that in a few clicks. Sometimes we create a virtual machine and then create EBS simultaneously because the AWS console provides options we can use. Another way is by using our own infrastructure as code/technology. We deploy EBS through our infrastructure codes, and then the EBS is deployed automatically. We have about 200 clients using EBS. Some of them are small, but most are enterprise businesses. 

The cost of using EBS is high compared to other cloud vendors such as Tencent Cloud or CARI Cloud. For example, the EBS standard storage and snapshot are relatively expensive. If we cannot maintain our snapshot policy in a good economic way, there will be extra costs. Some costs are generated immediately and some are likely to increase. If the price of snapshots keeps increasing, we might not be able to afford it anymore. In terms of costliness, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

My advice to people who are considering using EBS is to use the correct type according to your performance. If you want any additional features, you will have to pay more. You will need to deactivate or delete snapshots in order to avoid extra costs. You should monitor the performance as well. Overall, I would rate ETB an eight out of ten.

When I have to change the operating system or delete a host, I can store the data in EBS or assign it to another host. It is the most valuable feature of EBS.

The product data encryption feature needs improvement.

It is a stable platform. We never faced stability issues.

It is an easy-to-scale platform. We have 50-100 EBS users.

The product’s technical support services are good.

Positive

The product’s initial setup process has medium complexity. It requires specific knowledge for easier deployment. It takes an hour to complete. It requires just one executive, as automation features make it easy to deploy.

For maintenance, it requires one or two people. Earlier, we accidentally removed the data from EBS. We had to restore it using the snapshots. To handle this situation, we needed a team of a maximum of three people.

The product is low-priced than other solutions. It is very affordable for small companies. It is beneficial for customers who are already using AWS cloud services. We purchase its yearly license. There are additional costs involved depending on requirements.

I recommend the product and rate it a nine out of ten. It provides data security. We can quickly restore data using backup snapshots from the production environment.

The tool's most valuable feature is reliability. 

I have been working with the product for more than a year. 

The tool's scalability is fine. 

My team is doing a good job, and I haven't contacted support yet. 

I rate the tool a six out of ten. It does what it is supposed to do and fits our needs. 

Amazon EBS is a storage system, and the storage is attached to the servers. If you are using multiple things like applications and DB inside a server, it needs much storage. The storage dependency is configured with Amazon EBS.

We can directly attach any of the servers. Since the file systems of different operating systems, like Linux and Windows, are different, we cannot merge them. It would be better to analyze and find a way to merge both the file systems of Linux and Windows.

Amazon EBS is a stable solution.

In our organization, we are using 50 to 70 servers and 10 to 50 RDS. Each and every database server has Amazon EBS.

The solution’s technical support is good.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Users should use Amazon EBS if they are going to configure anything at the Amazon server level.

Overall, I rate Amazon EBS ten out of ten.

Our team uses the solution as secondary or backup storage. Currently, we have ten users. 

The solution provides big space that is reasonably priced. 

The setup could be easier. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable with few issues. 

The solution is scalable based on how much storage you purchase. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup is medium but not too difficult. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is reasonably priced. 

We are familiar with and prefer AWS services in our environment. We did not evaluate other options. 

Our team uses the solution but is less dependent on it because it serves as secondary storage. 

We do not have enough exposure to rate the solution's features. Based on our use, the solution is rated a six out of ten. 

We use Amazon EBS for customer data and storage. 

The product comes with multiple central port installations like gp2 and gp3. 

Amazon EBS needs to improve its user interface for data transactions. 

I have been working with the product for two years. 

The tool is highly stable. 

Amazon EBS is highly scalable. I am the single user of the product in my company. I use it 24/7. 

The tool's deployment is easy. I rate it an eight out of ten. Deployment gets completed in 10 minutes. One resource is enough to handle the deployment maintenance. 

You need to pay additional costs for support. 

I rate Amazon EBS a ten out of ten. 

We use Amazon EBS for its different business applications, basic file shares, and database. You could call it a SAN. I'm not sure technologists would call it a SAN, but I do.

Amazon EBS has made our organization a little more efficient.

When it comes to valuable features, ease of use would be number one. Ease of access from anywhere type of thing.

I think performance can be improved. It's like feeling latency when you compare apples to apples as far as what you have in a SAN on-site, on-prem versus an EBS volume in the cloud. If you want to get rid of the latency, then that's where these costs start to really add up. 

On the onset, it's cheaper to get started. It has every bit of capability and availability you would expect and even more than your own environment. If you're trying to get to the same or a higher level of performance, you have to bite the bullet and pay through the roof.

The ability to administer it, use it, set it up, install it, and operate it is all as easy or easier. You get the flexibility to change, snapshot, and all of the same things you could do with even more capabilities. But if you have to get the same or improve your performance, it gets exponentially more costly.

I have been using Amazon EBS for over three years.

As far as stability, availability, and durability, and all of that, it's basically just about perfect. 

Amazon EBS is easy to scale. It's easier than on-prem.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. If you've ever set up LUNs and block storage in the physical world, it's pretty much the same. Just setting up a partition and carving up the LUN, and that's about it.

Amazon EBS is expensive. What I want Amazon to do is lower the price. All the functionality that I could think of and would like to consume is already there. It's just that there's a subset of it that's not affordable to us yet.

We're still using it on-prem, and it's just a matter of migrating to the cloud. The way I look at it, there are about 27 advantages to migrating to the cloud. There are one or two disadvantages, and these disadvantages can be overcome with money.

It's one of those things where we're selective about what's getting moved by measuring it and characterizing it. Then we pick and choose what moves next. There are some tremendous advantages to moving up to the cloud, and that's the reason why we started this effort. 

Making sure that the effort would work and would satisfy where we were going was step one. Then step two was taking, picking, and choosing which workloads to move and when to move them. Then deciding if there are workloads that would never move. I'm not sure I think that's the case yet, but it's just a matter of time and budget.

If you are thinking of getting Amazon EBS, I would advise you to characterize your priorities and incrementally measure the outcomes as you move the groupings of workloads over. Make sure that your predictions were the way it worked in reality. Then, measure the new reality, and verify with your users. Check whether the limitations and the disadvantages are acceptable to your users. If they aren't acceptable, then deliver the needed cost increments that would deliver upon that.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon EBS an eight.