Amazon EC2 Reviews

We have a team to manage cloud solutions. My company uses the tool for cloud monitoring. We have a production, staging, deployment, and testing environment in AWS. However, we do not use the managed service of AWS yet. My team uses the required parameters for security like VPC, firewall, gates of security as well as the external layer of the app.

The features depend on the use cases. We have different family types for computing. There is the R series for databases. For general purposes, there are the N series and the C series. RCE is for DL based kinds of things.

The tool’s stability could be better.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable and I would rate it a seven out of ten. My company is practicing to improve the architecture as per the requirements.

The solution is scalable. We have already implemented the requirements of production in frontend ALBs. This will help us move as per the request of the microservice and monolithic parts. There are more than 700-800 users for the tool in our company. Our company’s departments use it for different applications.

We manage and do everything on our own. In case we are stuck at any point, we buy tech support from AWS.

The initial setup is both straightforward and complex. The tool’s Microsoft base and microservices parts are complex while the other monolithic base is really good. The solution’s monolithic base architecture is simple and straightforward.

We use cloud permission for SaaS code and services for which there are templates. My team needs an hour to deploy the entire architecture for any new project. We are able to create insights for new projects.

We have templates on the cloud solution where my team checks the requirements. After pushing the parameters, we can create a new structure for the project in an hour or so. There is no need to manually create or increase anything.

We have in-house strength to do the deployment. My team upgrades themselves with certificate education. Our company doesn’t need third-party support right now. If anything critical arises, then we will buy AWS credit for the support from them.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I like the product’s performance. We have a different methodology where we check the work and evaluate how it is beneficial and how we can reduce the costs. My company is working on this. We use the solution for temporary use cases. My team uses it to build, produce and monitor the cloud versions. If there is a need to scale up or down, we will do that. Amazon EC2 has auto-load elastic LV.

The solution is stable and we have never faced any downtime with it. We also have an alarm system where we get ticket notifications. Our applications have never been down and we are happy with Amazon EC2.

I am using Amazon EC2 for migration of on-premise to the cloud.

Our objective is to assist our customers in transitioning their infrastructure to Amazon AWS or another cloud provider. We aim to alleviate their workload by migrating to Amazon EC2. The initial phase involves utilizing Amazon EC2.

The greatest benefit of Amazon EC2 is its versatility, including the diverse range of servers available and the ability to connect to various resources.

Amazon EC2 could improve the console view. The ability to see the console view directly would be helpful, similar to what VMware has. Additionally, when the system is rebooting we are able to see a screenshot of the UI, but it would be a lot better if we could interact directly with the console level.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

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

Amazon EC2 scales well.

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

I rate the support from Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have seen a return on investment using Amazon EC2, but I am not sure about our customers. We see the flexibility of the solution where our customers do not.

The licensing of Amazon EC2 is expensive. Microsoft Windows Servers are expensive to license.

If you're planning to use Amazon EC2, I recommend thoroughly testing your servers beforehand. This is especially important if you're migrating from an existing server to Amazon EC2, as there can be issues with transferring the entire image. To avoid any problems, make sure to test the image you're importing before the migration process.

I rate Amazon EC2 an eight out of ten.

I gave my rating of eight because they are lacking in console access.

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.

Our primary use case is for migrating Linux boxes to Windows boxes. We deal mainly with small and medium-sized businesses that are looking to move away from on-prem hardware to the cloud. We are customers and I'm an MSP architect.

The most valuable feature of this product is its reliability. Its ethernet configuration is stable and they provide good technical support. 

I'd like to see more tools to help our clients minimize their costs. The company could provide tips on savings. A couple of our clients have taken a pay-as-you-go model when they configure and they're paying a lot more money than they need to. 

The solution is stable as is the backend infrastructure.

The scalability is good whether you scale horizontally or vertically. A couple of clients scale out horizontally and the load balances help with that. 

Customer support is actually quite good. They've been able to fix or guide me on the solution.

I have experience with this product so the initial setup is easy for me. Some small businesses have their IT people, but others don't have the knowledge so I carry out an assessment for them. My medium sized clients have a couple of IT people who maintain the network side of things and the instances or the server aspect. If they have applications, then they have their own application people that take care of the application. Maintenance requires around three to five people. 

The cost varies depending on how many instances you have and how long you run it. Our most recent customers were running around four instances, and their bill was between $1,500 to $2,000.

It's important to have somebody familiar with the solution on board, especially if it's an organization that wants to move quickly. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We are using this solution for relational DB servers, application servers, and IaaS. We are also using it for SMTP and HTTP services, for compute services.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to have standard operating systems along with the Windows, Linux operating systems, and their maintenance-free structure, which we prefer.

One of the challenges is the AMI upgrades. For example, EC2 is running on a different AMI, and when we are trying to upgrade, it has mandatory manual processes involved. This is a problem for us. This is an area that we are looking forward to being taken care of or augmented.

Also, when we start doing upgrades, we start losing network connectivity.

We have some issues with the cost, as it's expensive.

They don't have much in the way of optimized support or OS-level support. Also, there is not much visibility in terms of the upgrade. This is an issue that we are facing at the moment.

We would like to see it have something quicker. When we reboot the EC2 instance, the time it takes to come up is a little on the higher side. We are not sure if it is better on the reserved instance, but with the on-demand instances, it's not great. There is no easy way that a preliminary support guy can quickly check why the system is down, or whether there is a network issue or not. These are things that are still convoluted and could be simplified.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The stability is fine, we don't have any issues.

This solution is easy to scale, but it is not easy to change the generation or the instance title. If you are in the same generation it's fine, but upgrading older generations to new generations is painful.

We have more than 80 users in our company. Most of the users are using it daily. The Dev tech team uses it daily.

We have a premium support license and they are efficient, but we have a few instances where the technical support was not very good. A few cases for support were not good but for the most part, they are efficient.

The initial setup is simple with a few moderate complexities, but it's ok.

We did not use an integrator or reseller, we managed ourselves.

The costs are quite high. For our usage, the cost is approximately $20,000 to $23,000 per month.

Know your use cases. You have to analyze your load and use case before you select a particular EC2 machine. You also need to look into the availability and the stability of that particular version of EC2 that you are going for.

Mainly Windows is secure, but Linus and others are difficult to secure.

I would rate this solution a seven out ten.

I use this solution to allow me to use work via a cloud computing platform.  This means I can access search information and features, such as Google Talk, that I would not normally be able to use.

My favorite feature of this solution is the flexibility of instance types, which allows for the cost to be tailored to the usage amount and type.

I would like to see improvement in the information available up-front for users around tailoring the package to their actual requirements. At present it can take time to work with the on demand instance until you are used to what features are right for the user.

I have been working with this solution for five years.

I have found this to be a stable solution during my time using it.

This is a scalable platform that can grow with the users requirements.

The initial setup of this solution is very quick and easy, and is all carried out online with guidance.

The pricing of this solution is variable.  There is an open-source variant that is accessible via the public cloud, and then tiers that range in price depending on the level and amount of usage that is required.

I would recommend that new users be very clear on what they require from this solution, and advise that they start with the 'user on demand' package until they know exactly what level of usage they need.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use EC2 for some web-based applications. We have around 10 users. 

EC2 is good.

I have been using EC2 for about half a year.

EC2 is stable. 

EC2 is scalable.

We previously used on-premise hardware. 

The setup is straightforward and it takes around an hour. 

EC2 is a little expensive. 

I rate Amazon EC2 seven out of 10. 

I use this solution in my personal capacity for computing capacity. I use the free tier service. 

I like EC2 because of its simple workload and the ability to configure VPCs and security groups.

This solution could be improved with better pricing. If you continue using this solution over a long period of time, your costs may accumulate. I would also like a way to move my on-prem workload into the cloud.

I have been using this solution for one year. 

This is a stable solution. 

Yes, this is a scalable solution. You can configure the solution for auto-scaling which scales any available resource that you want.

I have not had any reason to contact tech support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It took five minutes for me to set it up. 

I completed this myself as I use this solution for personal use. 

I use the free tier, although I have paid for some services that are not free. The overall cost of this solution depends on the services you use. 

I would recommend Amazon EC2 to other people.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.