Amazon S3 Reviews

We use the solution to put our static web pages on the backend servers when we use Cloudfront if a transformation is required. When a request reaches Cloudfront, we have to mask some information in the response by transporting it.

The solution masks or transforms the request so the backend can understand them. For example, We have a proxy server in between the NGINX engine, and when a request hits the NGINX engine, it has a different format. The NGINX engine converts and secures the information before hitting the Cloudfront. We use the Lambda function which is a Python program so the code body stays in the Amazon S3 bucket and when a response is returned from the backend server we can mask some of the information, keeping only the required information for the end response.

I also use Amazon S3 for batch processing. Two gigabytes is a lot of data, especially if we are adding or updating information. If we have a Java application, it can take a long time to process two gigabytes of data. I split the data into multiple 50 or 30-MB files to make it easier to process.  I created a manifest file that specified which rows belonged to which files. Then I used the solutions batch processing with Lambda to create a pipeline that performs batch operations.

I use the solution for life cycle management. The information goes from the standard storage to the infrequent, and after 30 days it is moved to the glacier.

Amazon S3 provides us with a ready-made server. We have the option to secure our case from public access, We can give access to the targeted audiences only with the signed page and signed requests. A signed request is also provided to the target audience so that they can use the link for requesting the object to be seen by the Amazon S3 bucket. We have a cloud formation template that we restored into Amazon S3 and during the launch of the AWS services, we only needed to execute the command from the Amazon S3 bucket. With the solution, we can simply provide our resources and files to Amazon for the code references using Lambda functions instead of keeping tiny scripts in the Amazon S3 bucket to restore codes.

The integration with Cloudfront helps in fetching the static phase and default phases in case our actual service is down. Instead of our customers receiving a response that something is happening in the background and trying the site later, we can redirect our page from one page to another, using the Amazon S3 bucket links in Cloudfront.

I would like a batch downloading option added to the AWS console. If we have a bucket in Amazon S3 and for example, we have 50 files that we want to download locally on our system, we need to download them one by one. We can batch-download the files with the command, but from the AWS console, we cannot select all the files and download them into a folder. 

An option to delete multiple files at one time would be a nice feature to be added to the AWS console because we currently have to specify the individual file names. For example, if five files are present, and we want to delete them, then each file name has to be entered separately.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is extremely stable. I give the stability ten out of ten.

The solution is scaled automatically because it is cloud-based. Whatever our demand is the solution has no limitations or restrictions. 

I give scalability ten out of ten.

We have only had the need for technical support three times using the solution and they were not able to resolve two of the issues because they were not supported by them. In most cases, we are able to resolve the issues using the information found on forums.

Neutral

Previously, we used our local hard disc and the local remote service. We were facing a lot of problems that cloud solutions have solved, like availability, and down servers or IP not reachable. 

The initial setup is straightforward. At the time of our deployment, we had one issue with our targeted audience not being able to access specific pages even after we followed the guidelines and video tutorials from AWS. This was three years ago and has probably been addressed. 

The deployment only takes a few minutes depending on the context. We just run our command from either the CLI or the AWS console and the smart configuration is complete.

Most of the time we work with our customers and they provide us with their network settings and all the AWS services that will be hosted in their network. Once a customer has created their accounts, and has applied their security and network settings, they provide us with the working space and using that information, we can deploy Amazon S3 to their network.

There is a 70 percent return on investment when transferring from external storage to Amazon S3.

The cost is based on the amount of storage required and if we exceed the data transfer rate across regions.

If we use an external encryption key and not the one included by AWS, the data transfer between the key server and our Amazon S3 server will incur a charge.

I give the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is a web service that is hosted on the cloud only. Even if we tried to deploy it on-premise, we couldn't because AWS has the outpost service. Outposts are a way to create an AWS cloud environment locally, but some services are not available. S3 is a regional service and has to be serverless. 

Amazon S3 doesn't require any maintenance except perhaps one or two people for identity access management and a way to validate users.

All of our AWS developers use Amazon S3 including our migration people who have to take a backup using the solution for all the projects.

Amazon S3 is the perfect service for all applications for personal use. Anyone can use this solution regardless of their location with an AWS user account. The solution offers good web service and is perfect for anyone that wants to set up a minimal startup static web page for information purposes easily.

I am managing the S3 storage solution from Amazon. From Microsoft, I'm managing the Azure administration. I handle that. As a part of that, I need to create the virtual machines, a point to site to VPN and Azure AD, AD synchronization with Windows server, a database server, mail server, and web server. I administrate all that.

We use Amazon S3 for storing files and documents on the cloud. I fill out the user whenever the files they use are downloaded. That is fully automated. After a few days, it can delete it. I've done the policy for the automated deletion.

Amazon S3 is great. We are using it for storage solutions.

Due to using S3, our data documents are safe and easy to access. It is better to keep them in the cloud as opposed to in our internal drive. You can access them from anywhere. Especially during the pandemic period, we are able to access remotely, as well. So it's good.

We are using the basic S3 bucket. It is easy to manage and easy to understand.

We need the mapping to Windows. That feature is needed in S3. That feature is in the Azure cloud where we can map it like a drive. We can map the cloud storage to the effort driving our Windows PC. But Amazon is not providing that feature for the S3 solution.

In the next release I would like to see mapping on the Windows machine. In Windows, there are drives right in volumes. We need to map these Amazon S3 storage to the Windows. That usually is available in the Azure. I would like to have that in the Amazon as well.

We have been using Amazon S3 for just six months as of now.

In terms of stability, it is good and has no issues.

We can scale Amazon S3 for storage. We can increase or scale up and we can scale down. It's easy to manage.

I'm happy where I'm at right now. If we need more storage, we will implement. We'll scale it up.

As of now, I haven't needed to contact support. It is really easy to manage. Even for the small issues, we can just Google the issues and find the solution. For complex issues, we may need to contact them, but as of now, I haven't needed to. I haven't faced any issues like that, so I didn't contact support. We have found that there is enough online documentation regarding S3.

We switched because of the security and scalability. It is highly secure because nobody can access it. Before we had solutions using an FTP and SFTP. That protocol is different and we are now using the S3. We need a shared key and an access secret key to access the particular storage. Without that, we cannot access. We cannot do anything. So security is more important. That's why we switched to Amazon S3.

The initial setup is simple and easy to manage.

It's not actually a deployment. It is a simple step. Within five minutes, we can deploy it.

Our implementation strategy for the solution is based on the user's document files and how much GB they want and how they want to access that particular story's solution. Based on that scenario, I create the S3 bucket on the cloud for the particular users - whoever wants to access that particular S3. I created that particular IM user, the user access for that particular storage. I make an access policy to that particular storage.

Our ROI is good based on our usage. We have multiple users who are accessing this S3 storage.

It's a monthly pricing.

We are happy with the pricing.

Amazon S3 is a great solution.

My advice is to have an implementation strategy based on the user usage.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Amazon S3 an eight.

Usually, I use it to make deployments and service solutions in the cloud.

I don't have to waste time buying some computer or buying some external list or whatever they want. I can buy S3 in one minute. I don't have to spend time going to shops or anything like that. The payment is really good, easy. 

I save a lot of time and money with contract people that have to format the computers and install all the applications. 

I can do snapshots and recover data very easily.

It's a very good solution. It is very user cool and very user-friendly. 

I don't have any problems with the solution. It's issue-free.  

I can get a lot of information and data out of the solution, which is critical for me.

It's able to keep diversions quite well. 

The product provides for an easy initial setup.

The solution needs to improve test recognition. We need bots to test that are better. It's just not as good as Google, for example.

My main issue is security. If a code is entered incorrectly, it could leave you vulnerable to attack. 

I'd like to see more connections between EC2 and S3.

I've been using the solution for two or three years.

It is very stable. I never had any problem with S3. It's good. The only problem for me is that it is very easy to put in code that might have some mistake, and, in the end, everybody sees your information. You could have an attack or a hack in as it is very easy to change the entire software.  That is a big issue for me and the guys. 

I don't have any problems with scalability. I have not run into any limitations, however, there may be limitations in terms of the number of folders. That said, I've never seen any scalability issues.

We have ten to 15 people working with the solution. However, it depends on the day. For example, sometimes I am using S3 to produce some information for e-commerce. In e-commerce, I have all the images and all the information that I need on a pdf. However, I'll have some websites where 1000 people are basically connecting.

Technical support is inefficient and poor. 

I am also familiar with Google products.

I previously used some solutions based on MinIO.

The solution is very easy to set up. It's not difficult or complex. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on each project. Some might just take minutes. Others may be longer.

How many people you need for deployment also varies according to what's needed. 

Sometimes we handle it in-house and sometimes we have others handle the initial setup. 

I have seen an ROI. Previously, I needed a lot of people to store, deploy, maintain. Now, I have only a couple of people to work at all this stuff.

The pricing is pretty good. We don't have any issues with it. 

I spend $20,000 more or less every month.

We are a customer and end-user.

We sometimes use the latest version of the solution, however, it depends. They normally update users on the direction of the product. I'm not sure if we have the latest right now or not.

With this product, you can manage your distribution and manage all the different hosted data and who is able to serve or write on the backend. If you make a mistake, you can return to the previous iteration. It's good, even though sometimes it can be a little slow. The price and the quality are very good.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon S3 for storing images and documents. We use the solution for all file formats, and Amazon S3 gives us back URLs rendered on our end users' laptops.

My company uses Amazon S3 by default for every single project. I like that you can use it for storing different file formats.

Amazon S3 is also the easiest to use compared to other solutions.

The pricing for Amazon S3 needs improvement.

Another area for improvement is the file size change because it has some limitations that require more time for rendering, especially if you're not merely uploading a file, but reviewing that file, too. It takes some time to receive the file back. In the downloaded format, the file gets compressed.

We have been using Amazon S3 for almost five years on many projects.

The stability of Amazon S3 could be better. Though it's better than Google stability-wise, the rendering needs improvement.

There's no complaint about the scalability of Amazon S3 because it's more of a pay-as-you-go solution. You have to pay when you exhaust your storage, and the cost is a little higher, but there's no issue scaling the solution.

Amazon S3 customer support is good. The support team sometimes waives the technical consultation fee, unlike Microsoft Azure and GCP, which charge you for every consultation, even when you try to solve the issue or DIY it.

Sometimes, Amazon S3 support gets delayed, but Amazon has great engineers who come up with solutions to your issues rather than wasting time.

Amazon S3 has a straightforward setup. It's simple because it's just a plug-in, so it takes little time to set up.

It only takes two hours to set up Amazon S3. You use the Chrome browser on your phone. It's as easy as that, so every developer knows how to do it. You deploy Amazon S3 manually. It's a simple process. You sign up, take a storage folder, and then link the folder to your project. It'll take two hours, and that's it.

The cost of Amazon S3 could be better. The solution needs to be less costly. As the number of data increases, you'll pay more for Amazon S3. It's around $200, which is okay, but my company uses it less often. For a file storage solution, Amazon S3 is expensive, though it would still depend on the project. It's more of the storage charge that needs to be lowered. Usually, Amazon gives you up to five TB free. Suppose Amazon charges you $200, that's fine, but it doesn't feel very justifiable, though there's no question in terms of the abilities of Amazon S3.

There's no extra cost for Amazon S3 except for personal storage.

My company has hundreds of customers using Amazon S3.

I recommend Amazon S3 to others because Amazon has an IT cloud-first approach. It has microservices that could benefit your organization because, development-wise, it's outstanding. It has more reliability and stability. Amazon S3 boosts performance, which saves you time. Though it comes with a premium price, with the time saved, the solution can help grow your business faster. Before you even start using Amazon S3, I recommend seeing the available microservices and looking into what Amazon is trying to improvise and build so that you can use it for new projects and save on time and cost.

My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten, but if the rendering speed, stability, and performance based on file size are better, I could give the solution a higher score.

I'm a consultant who provides services for companies of various sizes here in South Africa. Our company is still small, with only about 20 clients. I use S3 for hosting my websites and other storage services. S3 can be used for static and dynamic websites as well as file storage. In terms of dynamic websites, I use S3 in addition to other technologies in a computerless environment. In other words, I don't need a virtual machine to have a dynamic website hosted on Amazon Web Services.

E3's most valuable feature is CloudFront.

You need to do some things to make the files and updates immediately accessible. If you don't know those steps, you will wait forever for your updates to take effect or be seen by the public.

That is the only area where a newcomer might get frustrated with hosting on S3. The files are available immediately when they are first deployed, but it takes some time when they make changes if you don't understand the simple procedure you need to follow for it to happen immediately.

The process needed to show updates immediately is a problem. You have to go somewhere to delete whatever is propagated and restart the propagation somehow. That is the only issue that I think they could fix with hosting on S3 as far as websites are concerned.

I would also like S3 to have the ability to do dynamic websites without the need to do reconfigurations outside of S3. You should be able to switch on dynamic websites in S3, and then it works. I shouldn't need to go elsewhere within Amazon Web Services to get a dynamic website to work.

I've been using S3 for about three years 

It's a cloud service, so our scalability is good. I haven't had any issues. At the same time, I haven't had a situation where a client needed to expand the footprint of their site tremendously. I don't have massive clients like Netflix.

I was never in a position where I needed to request AWS tech support.

I've also used Azure's tool, and S3 is far more stable I haven't seen the same issues on AWS that I'm having on Azure. Amazon CloudFront is way faster. The websites are loading way faster than when you do it on Azure CDN.

Another advantage of S3 over CDN is the fact that I can deploy my websites on Amazon S3 with the root domain and the sub-domain loading the website. When using CDN, you cannot load the website with the root domain.

In the beginning, it wasn't easy. S3 was a little cumbersome when I started using it. With updates, it became easier to set up static websites. However, deploying dynamic websites in S3 is still difficult. You need to take notes on what you're doing so you can do the next dynamic website. 

The deployment is quite fast. You upload files, and that's it.

There a no license fees. E3 is a cloud service, and you pay as you go. Your encryption licenses are free, so you only pay for the storage you're using. It's extremely inexpensive. 

I rate Amazon S3 10 out of 10. S3 is highly cost-effective, so I would definitely recommend it.

I am using Amazon S3 mainly for daily backups.

Amazon S3 has helped our organization because the daily backups can be done automatically with automation. We do not have to spend time on it and I am confident with Amazon S3 in its ability to recover our data.

Amazon S3 is easy to use and it is beneficial to use the CLI to make the backups. Since I use the CLI I do not have to do it on a web portal which is a big advantage because everything can be automatized. Automation can be done very well in Amazon S3.

The solution could improve by having a simpler way to have the detail size of a file in the CLI to be read or understood easier. Today, it's a little raw in the way the details are presented. You have to make some scripts and some modifications to be able to see the information properly of the size of a given bucket or the size of a file.

I have been using Amazon S3 for a long time. I used the latest version because the CLI is normally updated.

The stability of the Amazon S3 is good.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is great.

We are a small company and we have approximately five developers that use Amazon S3. We use the solution on a daily basis for hourly backups.

I have used the support from Amazon S3 a long time ago, I have not needed much help. When I did have contact with them there were times it took a while for a response.

I would rate the technical support of Amazon S3 a three out of five.

The main difference from other solutions I have used is Amazon is the leader, and it has a very large number of zones and capacity, while others can be smaller and can have different options. Not all the options that are available in Amazon S3 are offered by other competitors, but for the main features, most of them are working fine. I have been evaluating two different solutions, one from a French cloud-based company called Scaleway, and the other is peer-to-peer storage.

The installation was simple. Creating a new bucket and deploying it is very straightforward. To make the script deploy a new bucket takes approximately one hour. 

I would rate the initial setup of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

We did the implementation ourselves and we have two developers that do the maintenance of the solution.

The return on investment has been very good because the backups of our database are critical for our business to operate.

I would rate the return on investment of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

The price of the Amazon S3 is reasonable. There are not any licensing costs, they have a pay-as-you-use model.

I have evaluated other options.

My advice to others is to separate the buckets project, not to put everything in the same bucket, and be sure to implement IAM rules to avoid problems between users and not to lose any backups. The implementation process is important. 

I rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten.

We use Amazon S3 for data storage purposes. We use the stored data for restoration or backup when there is a data leakage in websites and mobile applications. For enterprise-level applications, the stored data is also used for data analytics, backup, recovery, etc.

The tool helps us with data backup storage of payment files and helps us avoid issues with clients when we miss the data. For instance, in the payment file of my Google client, you can find details of one-to-one transactions like the payment information on the file header, payment ID, payment client ID, group headers, etc. We get these details into the file format of ISO which is the accepted format at JP Morgan & Chase. Once we get the file format, we process it through S3.

In S3, we do the syncing process where everything is automated as per the business logic. The data is sent to S3 after the syncing process. S3 will evaluate the data and the format and store it for backup purposes. Whenever we miss a payment, we can just recover the history from the storage bucket. So it helps us manage the features, cost, and regulatory aspects.

I like the S3 Lambda access point and S3 management console which helps with the filtering and returning of data.

Many customers use this tool. We use it for enterprise application data where we store all cloud-native application production data. You can upload any amount of data and access it from anywhere to deploy the applications. However, the tool needs to improve its performance. Clients can reach more end users if the overall process is faster.

The solution can be a perfect tool if it can add more S3 storage classes and manage the authorized users to one bucket and give access to the storage usage and activity trends.

I have been using the solution for the past two years.

The solution’s stability can have a rating of eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten. Scalability depends on the size of the data which can be zero bytes to five TB which is the largest.

I would rate the customer service and support a nine out ten. 

Positive

AWS S3’s setup is not complex, and in fact, manageable. The number of people required for deployment depends on the data. If it is a Single Page Application with single-page data, then one person is enough for the deployment. However, if there are payment files involved, then you need around three to four people in the team to deploy it on the cloud.

There is ROI with the use of the tool. Organizations can benefit from the tool with their business logic.

The tool is not too expensive considering the various pros.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I am not sure about the solution’s version. It should be either four or five. I have practical knowledge of the tool like its implementation. We store data on the S3 bucket and take it to present to the database. The tool is manageable and maintainable by anyone for their work.

This is a perfect tool for data storage. It is good to use S3 as a storage bucket for data.

We use this solution to store the historical data of the customer. Additionally, we are creating JSON format data while running our application and we are pushing this JSON format data to the Amazon S3.

This solution is good at storing historical data and we were using it for other purposes.

When we need to find the queries there is no user interface, it is the only textual format that is bulky. If we need some data we will use Athena for queries and we will get results. When comparing this solution to others, such as DataDog, they provide a wonderful UI, and user-friendly dashboards, and many other features that this solution is lacking.

We have found that the query takes too much time to process and it is quite difficult to receive the data.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution scalable.

The initial setup was quite complex. We needed to create some endpoints but with a little effort everything turned out alright. Additionally, we use Kafka queues and we send them to the S3 bucket. With the help of shell scripts, we run one script and we receive the data from Kafka queue, topic by topic, and we send the data to the S3 bucket.

The cost of storage is cheap. However, the cost to have a better interface can get expensive. We are using Athena for this purpose and if we did some heavy queries the cost will start adding up. When the Athena query is running, it will scan the bucket and they charge for how many GBs we are going to scan. The function of scanning has a lot of costs attached to it, this is a negative point.

I have evaluated Datadog and Kibana and we are planning on moving away from Amazon S3 and S3 Athena because the other solutions provide the latest technology.

We should not use this solution for the purpose of the logs. We realized if we need to track the logs and a few other things we should use a good log platform which would have been better.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future but only for a specific set of purposes. We are moving away from S3 to a different solution, such as Datadog or Elasticsearch because 80% of the usage is only for storage purposes. We will keep on doing the same thing in the future. Only 20% of our usage we are planning to move from S3 to a log platform.

I would advise others if this solution fits the use case or expected usage for the end-user then I would recommend it. If they can afford everything that is involved, such as storage and usage fees, then it would be a good choice. They have to consider how frequently they want to access the data from the storage, how many heavy queries they want to run, and are they going to manipulate the data or retrieve the data. They should consider all these scenarios before they make the decision to implement the solution.

I rate Amazon S3an eight out of ten.