Amazon S3 Glacier Reviews

I work in a school. We have a lot of graphics, videos, pictures, and multimedia data. We use the solution for data backup.

The product is easy to use. The restoration is not as complicated as we thought it would be. Thankfully, there hasn't been a situation where we had to recover everything.

The stability must be improved.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a six or seven out of ten.

The scalability depends upon the product’s versions. Generally, the tool is scalable. Currently, we are backing up around 9 to 10 TB of our data.

The support is good. The support team is quite helpful.

We need the vendor’s support during the initial setup. The deployment took about five working days. We had to engage with the vendor and have multiple sessions. We scheduled the deployment and got it done.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. The pricing must be improved. The solution must provide discounts for the education sector.

I would recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We use the solution for migration. 

The product takes more time to secure data when the bandwidth is low. 

I have been working with the product for one year. 

I would rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The tool is simple to use and not very expensive.

The product needs to improve cloud security. 

The product is stable. 

The tool is scalable. 

I would rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We use it for our products, mainly as a source for some data, like a type of S3 bucket.

It's mostly used for current product data, not archival data. We use it for things like customer demos, training for customers, and also storing large configuration files.

The reliability of storage is the main benefit.

The pricing is a bit expensive. There is room for improvement in costs.

I have been using it for a couple of years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is a very scalable solution.

There are around 50 end users using this solution. We do plan to increase the further usage.

The initial setup is straightforward once you get used to it. It's automated for us now, so in that sense, it's very easy.

We need about ten DevOps guys for the deployment. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution. 

I would suggest just go through thorough AWS training and some of the training courseification programs.

If I construct many web servers, it would need network and OS settings. It would also need security. Amazon is a comprehensive solution.

The product has many files and graphics. It is a very comprehensive tool.

The product is difficult to use.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. I am the only user.

Support costs us more. So, we do not contact support. There are no good companies in Japan that provide support for Amazon.

The initial setup is complex. The deployment takes two to three days. I studied an Udemy course to do it. It was difficult.

Programmers and system engineers do not find the tool to be difficult. However, it is difficult for others. I would not recommend it to many people. Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.

We use S3 as a short-term backup, and we use the Glacier as a long retention backup for our customers. We also use Crosswork to orchestrate from on-prem to the cloud. For example, we had a customer who has certified remote offices, and they want to control the backup at these remote offices from the head office. We installed our own software, and we booked and supplied S3 pockets to each one. 

I like the price. If you compare Glacier to others, the prices in terms of what you store beyond retention are much lower. You would pay a lot more money to archive it online or on-premise storage because Glacier has been designed to keep content for longer retention. It will cost a lot of money if you keep it in online storage in your data center. 

The response times could be faster. When you are with Amazon and use Glacier, you expect a response time between four to seven hours to retrieve the data. People will want to keep the content for a longer time, but they want to make shorter windows for that. 

It will help if they make that according to the SLA, for example, SLA level 1, SLA level 2, and SLA level 3, and make a premium SLA for Glacier and make it one hour and 15 minutes to retrieve it. 

All this will enhance the utilization of Glacier for our client's content. IT people will think that even archive should be faster, but archive means delivery is faster. It should guarantee content integrity at a certain time when you need the information.

Amazon partner support is very good. You have different levels of support. There are options like standard and premium vendor support. Based on that, you have some of the business services like business support.

The implementation of Amazon S3 Glacier is straightforward. It is very nice. It is just a couple of steps. If the engineer understands the components, it is easy to integrate.

Amazon S3 Glacier is much cheaper than competing products.

You have to be aware of Glacier's performance. There is a delay in Glacier, and you will not have a response because you can archive it. If you bring files from the library, from the archive, the response time is between four to seven hours. When you fetch something from the archive, it will take time. If you want to make it faster, we keep the content on S3, and it will come instantly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon S3 Glacier a nine.

We use Amazon S3 Glacier for HPE 3PAR saving, content restoration, and deep storage for hosted data storage.

We like that the price is cheaper.

I would like to see the retrieval time reduced. You have to wait a day to get your data. 

You have to wait for six servers and generate your request to get your data out. If that time period could be reduced to an hour that would be an advantage.

It would be helpful to have an Emulator tool to mount the storage without the need for a third party. Normally, when we mount Amazon s3 Glacier onto, an on-premises solution we need the Emulator tool. It would be great if there was direct access to mount it.

I have been using Amazon S3 for two years.

It's a cloud-based solution. We are always using the latest version.

I have never communicated with technical support.

We are working with the standard Amazon S3, and Amazon S3 Glacier.

Previously, we did not work with any other solution. Amazon S3 Glacier was the first one that we used.

It's a cloud-based solution, there is no installation.

There is no license, you pay for what you use.

I would recommend this solution to other users who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon S3 Glacier an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution are data backups and solution discovery.

The data archive feature is valuable.

They can improve data discovery. However, I do not have specific requests for improvements because you get what you pay for. Amazon S3 Glacier is the cheapest, so I don't think I have anything to fix. If you want something better, you pay for it.

The product is pretty decent. There are never any issues regarding downtimes, uptimes and data recovery, and it's really nice. It's very stable.

I've never had to deal with technical support because we haven't had any issues with using Amazon S3 Glacier.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by including better data discovery. My advice to new users in a startup company is if you're cost-effective, go for Amazon S3 Glacier.