Amazon S3 Glacier Reviews

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. 

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.

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 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.

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 used the solution to store images that we did not require access to immediately.

The stability is good.

The maintenance has room for improvement.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I used the solution for a year.

The solution is stable.

The support team is horrible and not responsive at all.

Negative

The initial setup is complicated and took a lot of time.

I give the solution a one out of ten.

The maintenance is a nightmare.

Amazon made two unauthorized charges, and we were unable to contact anyone to resolve the issue. As a result, we had to cancel the service.

We primarily use the solution for cold storage.

The solution is great for storing data you don't usually need access to. It's also well-integrated with Amazon S3.

You store data in S3 and you create a policy that if this data is not accessed very frequently or if the data is not used, it will move that data from high storage to low storage. Cost-wise, it means great savings. If I'm paying $10 in internal storage, it will move to Glacier where I only pay less than a cent. You can push the data which you need, say once every two months or once every three months. That's the kind of data you can push into Glacier, not the data which you use every day or twice in a week.

I can't think of any improvements. It's a self-sustainable platform. We don't have anything which we need to add on. We are quite happy with the service.

Writing and storing data is very efficient. However, when you want to retrieve the data, it is a little bit time consuming because it specifies to retrieve the data it is going to take time, so you must make sure you log store the data which you will be accessing or which you will need very frequently.

I've been using Glacier for seven to eight years.

You don't have issues while accessing the data; we haven't seen any outages or downtime.

It's scalable. It is huge. Managing the integration is quite easy and it's managed in a very simple way. It's not like you have to have some complex understanding of our platform so it's quite easy to manage.

We are using the cloud deployment model. Everything is always on the cloud.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's a really good solution that could use a few small improvements, but for us, it works very well.