Amazon S3 Reviews

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.

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 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.

We primarily use the solution in order to share static files among web applications and mobile applications.

The ability to have everything in the cloud is the most valuable aspect of the solution. 

It allows me to only pay for what I use. Therefore, the pricing model is very useful.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has been stable so far.

We've found the scalability to be good.

I don't really have any pain points with this product. There isn't really anything to complain about. It does what we need it to do.

Technical support could have a faster response time. They are a bit slow right now.

I've been using the solution for three or four years or so at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is fairly stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and its performance is good.

The scalability is good. If a company can expand it, it can do so with ease.

Mostly, we implement this solution for small businesses.

At this point, neither we nor our clients have any plans to increase the usage.

Technical support is okay. They aren't good or bad. They are somewhere in the middle. Our main issue is the fact that they take too long to answer questions. Sometimes you need to wait up to two days to get any kind of response from them. They need to provide answers in a more timely manner.

The initial setup is not difficult or overly complex. It's very straightforward and easy to implement. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment times vary according to the company and its requirements. It could take anywhere from days to weeks.

You only need one person to handle the implementation process. It doesn't take a big team or a lot of people.

We are an implementor and can implement the solution for clients if they need us to.

The pricing is very fair. It's actually pretty inexpensive. We only pay for what we use. We don't have to pay for anything else.

We did not evaluate another product before ultimately choosing this solution. We went immediately to Amazon.

We are implementors.

I would recommend the solution to other companies. it's a very flexible product. It's cheap. You pay for what you get. It's just a cloud. AWS has a really good cloud implementation. I could not compare it with any other -such as Azure or Google - as I have not tried any of those. Users who would like to look at other options should check out Gartner's Magic Quadrant. However, any company can go easily to AWS straight away and be sure that they're going to pay a good price for a good service.

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

Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

The main aspect we like is that it's been easy to use.

The solution scales well.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has been helpful.

The pricing and licensing are pretty complex. It needs to be simplified. 

They have no development environment. That means that even during the development time, we are paying.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

It would be helpful if there were more templates available. 

Our application is still new. We are just in development. Our testing environment is on Amazon S3. Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

We've used it maybe for about a year.

The solution is stable. Up until this point, we haven't had any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product can scale well. It's very easy to do.

We have around 6,000 people using the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If there are some problems, we can contact them directly.

Most problems are on our side as there are some configurations and other things we did wrong. We've noted our issues and have fixed them going forward. However, it's on us to fix them, not Amazon.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. That said, my company is an IT company and therefore it's not hard for us. If there are other people that maybe aren't in IT, if they use the Amazon service, it could be complex to them.

In terms of maintenance, sometimes if there is some problem, right now we have only three engineers. It's a little bit hard to maintain it with just that small amount. That's why we're hiring some professional companies for that.

We pay for the solution on a monthly basis. We use a basic license and any additional fees based on usage. 

It's complete licensing. It's not simple at all. 

We did look at an option from Google, however, there were some restrictions and we decided against using them.

I'd advise new users to read the documentation before deciding on using the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.

We use it for static website hosting, storing data, and second data of some of the websites. We can then easily sync the data whenever we have the need to do so.

Some of our websites are 2 or 4 pages and have static content. We can simply host it by creating a bucket, putting the content of the website there, and making it available to the public with the Make Public feature.

Amazon S3 has multiple types of data detection. You can store data on a monthly basis, yearly basis, and long term basis. You can choose the Glacier feature, create a life cycle policy, and store it. This is one of the best features this solution has.

It is stable and scalable, and the installation is very straightforward as well.

The only pain point is migrating the life cycle policy because if someone is a newbie, they cannot easily create the life cycle policy. This is because there are multiple, additional ways. If I want to store data for one month, they have the option to Glacier over it. With Glacier, you have addition policies for one year or four years. The option will not be there. So you would need to use a UI process over it.

I've been using it for almost the last four years.

I think the stability of Amazon S3 is good.

It is scalable. We currently have 40 plus users.

Amazon Protect Support has been been quite responsive.

The initial setup was completely straightforward.

The licensing is pay as you go, and I'm happy with the pricing.

We didn't evaluate other options because there's no such available feature in the market at present that can compare all the things in a bucket, like S3.

If you are a small scale enterprise that wants to host websites or data, you should go for it and use Amazon S3. 

I would rate Amazon S3 at nine on a scale from one to ten.

I work as an integrator of Amazon S3

Normal file system storage is very limited when you want to store additional objects. The concept of S3 is to give you the option to have sharing from multiple users. They can share content among various users in a file system. It has the capacity to scale and to accommodate more files than a normal file system. This solution can really scale according to demand and you pay according to your consumption.

Whatever enhancement they could include in terms of object storage and limitations, would be an improvement. There is a five terabyte limitation size, and in today's world with the data size doubling all the time, anything extra would be helpful. We really need a very, very huge file system, a big data system to accommodate all this content. 

It is a scalable solution, the product has content encryption and nobody can access it. Amazon has very good security when it comes to securing the S3 buckets. You can keep the content secure and the user can have the encryption key and even Amazon doesn't have access to it. It's very secure. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you want to use it as a target for backup, you redirect the backup software to store data to it by using an API to talk to the S3 buckets. Depending on the application you want to deploy, integration is also easy. Amazon provides good documentation and if you have an IT background and go through the documentation, you can integrate.

Other companies are trying to reach them but they've been ahead of the game for a long time. As an object storage product and in comparison to what's available on the market, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

Our primary use case of S3 is as an online storage solution. For example, in one of our projects, we were working on a document management system, so there were some documents that we processed and then stored on S3. We also used S3 to store some logos and images. 

This is a service on AWS, so it's cloud-based. 

Some of the most valuable features are how convenient and easy to use S3 is. It's nicely integrated with AWS and is available on the AWS console. 

It could maybe use more integration. 

I have been using S3 for about three years. 

Since this service is on AWS, you can scale it for storage and performance. 

There are a few thousand users, in my organization, using the AWS platform. 

I don't remember us having a case where we needed support on S3. 

Since it's cloud-based, you don't really install it. You may need some certificates to access it, which need to be installed locally. 

I know there are certainly monthly and yearly licensing plans, but I'm not sure which is more preferable. The yearly ones could probably be more affordable, but that's just a general suggestion. 

I rate S3 a nine out of ten. I don't want to give it a perfect ten, but it's very close. For the purposes of online storage, it's pretty good. I would definitely recommend Amazon S3 to others because it's easy to use, quite powerful, and does its job very nicely.