Amazon EC2 Reviews

We have a couple of primary use cases. We have an internal password server that we use for one of them. The other use case is file transfer. We have set apart an in-house SFTP process and it is all there. ETL enterprise trends and the data transformation process also run on one of the servers.

We have databases that run on one of the EC2 docs. We have a direct database that runs AWS Postgres. We don't separate that, but we do have a part of the business that runs on the server as well.

My company has a couple of servers on EC2 that we manage across defined regions. We have roughly 11 servers currently in operation for live production services and around 5 staging environments.

We have Windows and Linux servers. I think there are less Linux servers than Windows at present. I would say there are two to three Linux centers and the rest are Windows. That's what we use. Of course we have detailed information of what we do but I can't go into too much information because our company is public.

I wouldn't say it's improved our company, to be honest, because sometimes we do have issues with it. Because as much as the increase in data storage is good it is also a problem. That is because of the cost. But I would say it's good because it helps us. I would say AWS generally helps us. I'm going to talk a bit about other AWS applications, because it's kind of difficult to just dwell on EC2 and not talk about other applications since we do not just use EC2.

We also use Cloud HSM. Cloud HSM is easy to install. It has really helped us in regard to security. Now we can have our own key to encrypt our stuff. And having EC2 available is also very useful because sometimes with the configuration of Amazon stuff, if it's not done on Amazon Linux servers, it gets pretty difficult to wiggle your way around it. But with the Amazon Linux server, it's just on the fly because of their image. The fact that Amazon has their own image really helps to make your job easier and faster to configure and save.

The features that I have found most valuable are that we can increase the storage of EC2. This is very helpful because sometimes when it comes to data transformation in far transfer, it gets really big because of the number of clients we have. Then we have to find a way to sort out archive data, etc.

It really makes it easy to either transfer data as an S3 bucket or increase the drive storage on the server. That is really useful. Another thing I really like about the services is that you can install Trend Micro Security on it. Most of the AWS services have gone with Trend Micro Security, which you can get installed on it. It helps to protect the servers and gives you that additional level of security.

In terms of what could be improved, it depends on the server. I would say they are so much better these days with updates, especially when it comes to Linux servers and there are so many material updates. AWS is really on the ball with ensuring that security practices are there, etc.. Windows is just the same old Windows. The problem is not Amazon but Windows itself.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for five years.

It is pretty stable regarding downtime. We probably get one downtime a month, for a few seconds up to a minute, but it rarely happens. The helpful thing about having EC2 instances is that you have CloudWatch. So it gives you logs of your downtime or the off time of the server. It gives you all that information if something is gone wrong with your server and you can fix it.

Amazon EC2 is highly scalable. But one thing I found that may be an issue is moving from one instance type to another. Because I found that you can't just switch instances. It seems you're limited to a certain category depending on the one you initially started with. But I'm not a hundred percent sure because I've only found that issue on one server and I know we've switched instance types before. Maybe just with that particular server I can't switch out of the categories of instances. I have to remain on the I's and I can't go to the M's or the C's or anything like that. I don't know if it's specific to that instance, though.

I don't know how many users are on it in total. I'd say less than 10. Most of them do data integration and team reporting, sometimes IT administration, and security, which is my team.

I haven't used technical support for EC2. I've used it for other AWS solutions, but not for EC2.

I am familiar with Azure servers and I find them more expensive than EC2. I find them quite difficult to use and they are not as scalable as AWS. They are not even that robust. I don't like Azure that much. The setup is also confusing.

The initial setup is actually very straightforward because if you follow the guidance given on AWS you can get everything done pretty quickly without any problems. The only way it gets difficult is when you try to configure things your own way. Of course, sometimes you need to do things your own way because you have certain requirements for that particular server. Then it could get complex.

It depends, again, on the server. If it's a Windows server it is very easy, like on the fly. If it is Linux, you might find it difficult to install some AM-AWS services. So that configuration may be tough. But if you're using the basic, it's pretty easy. 

But then you need to know what each of the instances are. You need to know what you're using it for and how these instance sites apply to your organization. You need an understanding of the basic information about AWS before you can just configure it. It's not like every person can just come in and configure it. It's easy to configure, but then it may not be what you need it for.

It is project dependent. Sometimes we follow the basic strategies. Sometimes we have to consider it based on the particular project which we're working on at the time.

We usually configure it ourselves in-house.

I think Amazon EC2 has fair pricing. I actually think the pricing is manageable. I have Free Tiers, as well. You can get on the Free Tier pricing and they just charge you for data storage.

My advice to anyone considering this is that they need to evaluate if it's necessary to have EC2, or if it is cheaper to run something in-house. It's very important because you don't want to throw money at cloud service providers if you can do it yourself. But the good thing is that cloud service providers take care of all the infrastructure and everything so you don't have to worry about that. It's nice to also have someone else accountable for your every structure rather than employing so many people at your job to do the work. That's the only good side about it. It is easy to learn Azure and all those GCP products.

On a scale of one to ten I would give Amazon EC2 an 8. 

I definitely would not give it a 10. It's not the best of the best because we still have issues with downtime. We still have issues with the cost of storage, with all these different instance styles, and how much it costs. They cost an arm and a leg the higher you go. Sometimes performance is an issue because of the kind of incidents that you have. That is why it cannot be a nine or a 10. But because CloudWatch is embedded in it, it lets you know when your system fails by sending you an email. It also has Trend Micro included. I think you may have to pay for it, am not sure. So it has benefits if you use it with other AWS services.

I'm using TCDs and OCDs, and these are the two high-performance systems.

We have our business applications running on EC2.

EC2 does have not many features. Normally, we do elastic load balancing, which is great.

The implementation is very easy. It's quick and easy to deploy.

It's quite stable. 

We find it easy to scale. 

We don't have any issues with the solution. Nothing is really missing in terms of features. 

I've been using the solution for many years now. 

The product is 100% stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales quite well, and it is easy to expand. 

It's very easy to add to what is already there. You just have to add memory and storage and restart the instance. 

We have more than 100 people using the solution.

While we do not have plans to increase usage at this time, we may do so in a year.

We've been happy with technical support. They are very helpful and responsive. 

Positive

The solution is straightforward to set up. It's not overly complex. We can deploy the solution in just ten to 15 minutes. It's very fast.

The maintenance is very easy. If we need help, we can always contact support for guidance. 

I was able to implement the solution myself. 

We've seen some ROI. It's saved us a lot of time on our side. 

The cost is moderate. It's not too high or too low. It's based on usage. While using AWS cloud ensures there are no hidden costs, if you use other clouds, there might be.

We did look into other options before choosing EC2. 

We're customers. 

I'm using a normal regular EC2. I'm not using containers.

On the cloud, we use both Amazon and Azure as our cloud. 

I'd recommend the solution as it is scalable, readily available, and offers good cost savings. People who know AWS have been very happy with the experience. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We are using Amazon EC2 for two purposes for our customers, hosting the platform and storing assets.

If we were not able to use Amazon EC2, our customers would not be able to use the services we provide. The solution is critical for the services we provide.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 is the computing capacity.

The scalability could improve.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

We have not had any issues.

I rate the stability of Amazon EC2 a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable and flexible. However, it could improve.

We have approximately three instances running internally. We are expected to have more customers using this solution in the future.

I rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is easy.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon EC2.

When we did the deployment of Amazon EC2 we found it to be less expensive than other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

I am using Amazon EC2 for computing applications in the cloud.

The most valuable features of Amazon EC2 are ease of use and the services offered.

Regional acceleration could improve. If I am hosting a website and I want the experience to be faster they should have this feature to allow for increased speeds.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately eight years.

The solution has been stable in my usage. 

The scalability of Amazon EC2 is good.

I have not used another similar solution to Amazon EC2.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is not difficult. We find out the requirements that are needed to then implement the solution to meet those needs.

The price of Amazon EC2 could improve. The Google Cloud Platform is more cost-effective.

We pay for Amazon EC2 monthly.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

We are using EC2 for a couple of things. We have integration with Control-M. We have on-prem integration with the on-prem Control-M systems, and we are using EC2 for that. We are also using EC2 for ECS as a worker node.

I like the AMI-related features. A very good feature of this solution is the customizable AMI. It is a very good feature provided by Amazon. The encryption technologies are also very good. We are using KMS, etc.

Load balancing of EC2 is another good feature. If we have a group of EC2s, automated load balancing or auto-scaling is there. Auto Scaling features are very good features.

The connectivity with on-prem is also very much supported. We didn't face any problems there. We had a requirement to integrate with the Control-M system, which transfers the files from one system to another system. For some reason, we were not able to use the ready-made or out-of-box feature provided by Amazon. We had to basically simulate the whole thing with EC2, and we didn't face any problems with this integration.

Another good feature is that we can go and create EC2 over the cloud service. It has also been very useful for data science purposes.

They can build automatic features for ENSS or network drive. They have the Control-M feature. Similarly, they should have a feature for the network drive that can be mapped. I have not seen such a feature. They have a lot of products but those are quite costly. There is no cheaper option available for the EC2 instance for syncing two drives. If these features are available, it would be good.

It is stable. So far, there have been no issues. I didn't get any complaints regarding EC2.

There might be more than 200 people working on EC2.

I didn't contact them for this solution.

It is straightforward. When I first brought up the EC2 instance, I was still learning, and it hardly took 5 to 10 minutes.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I'm using this solution for my company. We use multiple versions according to our needs and different types of instances and OS, like Windows, Linux, or auto-based.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

We have collaborated with AWS on different new service launches and POC, but we are not partners officially. We are a third party.

The most valuable features are the scalability options, low maintenance, and options to upgrade. AWS support is also pretty good. The generation upgrade is pretty simple and standardized. Earlier when I gave a review, we were struggling with it, but now the process is straightforward and standardized. We would love it to be automated, but the way it is right now is okay.

We buy EC2 instances, we buy OS, and we also pay for OS licenses. Support doesn't share or give insights on OS-based issues. That needs to improve because if someone is buying an EC2 instance with the Windows server and SQL license, the client expects that there will be a minimum level of support. We are not looking for Dell support or troubleshooting, but we definitely look for issues that are complex at the OS level, generally.

We would also like to see a better logging mechanism, which can be helpful for the product or generation. An additional feature should be better OS-level support for loggings, which are visible only to AWS support. There should be a way to at least have admin-level access to those so that we can analyze better, or if they come up with the automated generation upgrade. Once you deploy those solutions, you end up using them for years, and in that generation change for those EC2 instances happen. So, automating those will be key.

I have been working with this solution for almost five months.

Support is pretty good.

I have had a little bit of experience with Microsoft Azure. We evaluated it directly in the cloud.

If we compare different cloud providers, Microsoft has its own advantages, but EC2 is catching up quickly.

The advantage Microsoft has just depends on the typical use case. If you are a Microsoft customer and have been a customer for a few years, then you will probably find it easier to handle Azure than AWS. AWS has its certified AMIs available. But native support of Azure is better in terms of those technologies. Similarly, people generally find that AWS is a bit cheaper, but there are personal preferences or design concepts, which will be handled better depending upon the use case or tech stack in different cloud providers.

Gradually, it has improved. Initially, it was complex but it's pretty standard now. It will depend upon who is installing it, their experience, and their familiarity with that cloud provider. Given that we have two rounds of experience, we found it to be pretty straightforward. If someone is new to AWS, it will probably take more time.

The price is reasonable, but there is definitely an opportunity to lower it in instances which are of a higher configuration, because they have been typically used for the long term. There should be custom plans that cater to certain customers who have their uses. The reserved instances prices for SQL server are not that great. We definitely look for such things. 

We are exploring different managed database services, like RDS and Serverless Aurora. There is a scope of implementation on those services, which are pretty new, and most capabilities which are available in instance-based services are not available in Aurora Serverless.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

I will say AWS EC2 is a great place to start. Microsoft Azure is also good. The solution will be dependent upon the exact use case, but AWS EC2 is a good place to start.

I've used it as a VBI. I've used it as a web application server. I'm also using it as an RGS server.

AWS has always been my go-to for labs, as I can't afford massive machines at home. Therefore, I go to AWS to test new services. It's a space and energy saver. 

The amount of bandwidth has been most valuable. 

It is stable and does not crash.

The product can scale.

Initially, setting up the product is easy.

They have to provide clarity on pricing. It's not transparent. I've never gone to production on AWS, as I've never been clear on what it would cost.

I'd like to test the sign-ons of AWS with Google or Microsoft.

I started using the solution since 2016.

It is very stable. I've never had a machine go down. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'd rate the scalability very high. It can scale to however big you want. 

I've never used technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It is not overly complex. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is too complex. I can't understand it. If I have a service and want to launch in AWS, I need to know what it would cost to run it over the course of the year. I need to know the cost of bandwidth and storage. They need to lay out what they are charging and what clients can expect. 

I did not evaluate other options previously. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I'd advise others to make sure they understand pricing before diving in.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. I really don't have anything bad to say about its capabilities. 

My primary use case for Amazon EC2 is running specific Windows programs on the cloud and collecting data from them.

I would like to see as much automation for data validation as possible in the future.

I have been working with Amazon EC2 for two years.

I think it's a stable solution.

My impression is that this solution is scalable. We currently have four people using this solution and we have plans of expanding that number.

I would rate Amazon's tech support team a nine out of ten, with one being bad and one being excellent.

Positive

The setup was straightforward and easy. While the initial setup was simple, we had some problems with Glue scripts. We ran into some problems, but we found a way around them. 

It took around 20% of our staff to do this deployment and maintenance.

I think this is a very expensive solution and I would like it to be cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to others who want to start using it.

I would rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten, with one being poor and 10 being excellent.