Amazon S3 Glacier Reviews

I used the solution for firewall configuration and to configure rules and permissions.

Amazon S3 Glacier is a highly scalable and available solution. The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 Glacier is the on-premises data storage.

The solution's cloud storage is very expensive, and users may not be able to afford cloud storage.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for one year.

I rate the solution nine and a half out of ten for stability.

The solution’s initial setup is very straightforward.

It takes less than five minutes to spin off a server. When it comes to deployment, the solution's deployment is faster over the cloud.

Amazon S3 Glacier is a cloud-based solution. Around five engineers are needed for the solution's deployment and maintenance. It is easy to integrate Amazon S3 Glacier with other solutions. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate Amazon S3 Glacier nine and a half out of ten.

We use the solution for storing file objects.

The solution’s storage management is good and dynamic.

I have been using this solution for the past year. I’m currently using the latest version.

The product is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten.

The solution is highly scalable. Not individual users, but a specific application is using it within our company. I rate its scalability a perfect ten.

The customer service and support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. With a couple of clicks, you can set up the solution. First, create the S3 bucket and then get the URI. Our DevOps team mostly deals with this area.

We don't pay for licenses. We pay based on consumption data, considering how much data is stored.

I recommend the solution. It's an effective native solution. It should be the first choice for storing files in AWS. Overall, I rate the solution a perfect ten.

We're a tech company, so we use a variety of solutions, but S3 Glacier is what we currently use for the database. 

We use it both internally for our own projects and our clients. We host some projects on Azure and AWS, depending on client requirements.

It's mostly used by enterprises for hosting various solutions.

We get free credits from Amazon, and we like the overall stability. We haven't had to rely heavily on their customer success teams, which is a good sign.

With hyperscalers like Amazon, things are generally pretty smooth. As long as the product is stable, billing is clear, and we don't have issues, we're happy.

Billing issues can be a nightmare. It's tough reaching the right person to get them sorted out.

I have been using this product for about three years. 

It is easy to scale. That's a major reason we use both Azure and AWS. They're very scalable.

We have around 35 end users using this in our company. 

When we have to reach out to them, it becomes an issue. They can improve, but we don't need them frequently anyway.

We don't get the right people right away. They connect us to someone who doesn't know, and then it goes in a loop, and we have to be very patient to find the person who can actually solve our problem.

Positive

We use Microsoft Azure services. But the usage depends on the client or the purpose. 

Some enterprises are typically on Azure, while others prefer AWS. We're cloud-native, so we don't differentiate between the two, but it depends on the client's needs.

My tech team handled it. It was a matter of hours, not days.

One person should be enough.

We have seen an ROI. That's why we're using it. We see value in the return; otherwise, we wouldn't continue.

Mainly on the cost side, It's very easy to use, which leads to cost synergies. That's how we look at it.

If it were cheaper, I'd be happier. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. 

It is a yearly basis license. There are some other services that are linked with it as well. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

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 long-term backups. We take database backups and synchronize them to Glacier after 30 days. We also use it as part of our disaster recovery.

We sync to S3 and transfer to Glacier. It is a slow system in terms of performance. Also, it's cheap. It takes several hours to retrieve data if you need something from it.

There's no storage limit, and the price is excellent.

Glacier could provide easy browsing.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for five years.

I don't have to monitor the solution.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

Only I am using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I've used the amazon support.

We have used Egnyte and switched to Amazon S3 Glacier because it is cheap.

The initial setup was easy. I set up a management plan to automatically move old files into Glacier. We already had backups going into S3. So, I configured the system to automatically transfer some of those backups to Glacier storage within minutes.

We did the setup of the solution in-house.

I rate the product’s pricing a one out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Considered whether to archive files before putting them in the cloud.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten 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 it for archiving.

The pricing is low, and it's dedicated to archiving is valuable to us. 

So that's a good thing because you don't have to pay a lot when you don't use your data.

There is room for improvement in handling GDPR compliance better. GDPR is about personal data protection and retention. It would be great if S3 Glacier could handle compliance items related to this, especially with upcoming legislation like the California law, which restricts data storage time and allows users to request data deletion. 

Currently, if you're using Azure, you have to bring data back in a tiered process, which can be slow. If S3 Glacier could handle compliance more efficiently, it would add value.

Because GDPR is coming, and it will monitor data retention. In Quebec, we have Rule 25, which concerns data property and the ability to request data deletion. Handling this directly from Glacier would be a significant improvement.

The customer service and support were good. 

Positive

The price is fair. I would rate the pricing model a two out of ten, with one being the lowest price and ten being the highest price.

Maybe avoid reading data from S3 Glacier or processing data from there, as it can be very slow.

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