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.

The primary use case for Amazon S3 is as a storage service for structured and unstructured data. I use it for storing data for websites with different domains. My company and I use it internally for cloud-based services.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 include scalability, durability, reliability, security, access control, cost-effectiveness, performance, speed, data management, analytics, static website hosting, seamless integration with other AWS services, and budgeting features. 

I find the cost-effective models particularly suitable for our needs. The performance with high-speed data retrieval and support for large file uploads is crucial. Security measures like encryption, access controls, and the block public access feature are also important. 

Another useful feature is the MFA delete function that prevents accidental and malicious data deletions.

There is a limitation with the data upload size, such as the five terabytes restriction. I would like to see an increase in the data upload limit, similar to DynamoDB, where there is no data limit.

I have been working with Amazon S3 for more than three years.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten. There is zero latency or downtime.

Scalability is rated ten out of ten. The level of scalability allows storage to automatically scale on demand, without the need for manual intervention.

The technical support for Amazon S3 is rated ten out of ten. I have not faced any recent issues, and their response is always prompt and satisfactory.

Positive

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is very easy and is rated ten out of ten. It usually takes only five to ten minutes to set up, depending on the specific requirements and amount of data.

I am responsible for service deployment, primarily using EC2 instances and Amazon RDS for databases.

I am still learning about AI services like SageMaker and Amazon Recognition to potentially test with S3 in the future. 

Overall, I rate Amazon S3 a ten 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.

I am using Amazon S3 for our retail portal sites and data scientist users are using it for analytics and Athena.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the global availability, resiliency, and ease of access control.

Amazon S3 could improve the performance reports. It would be a benefit if they were more comprehensive.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three years.

Amazon S3 stable is very high.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is very good.

We have approximately eight to 10 concurrent users using this solution.

The technical support is good.

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a five out of five.

I previously used Blob Storage in Microsoft Azure. We had a multi-cloud strategy, and we had both solutions available to use. For some projects, we used Amazon S3, and for the others depending on what services they needed to use, we used Microsoft Azure. We got Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure for different projects.

Amazon S3's initial setup is easy, and simple to work with.

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

Once Amazon S3 is set up, the developers use it for doing analytics and there isn't much in the way of ongoing maintenance.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon S3, we find it inexpensive.

Amazon S3 is straightforward, scalable, and globally available and there are some good security features for making sure control over access is taken care of. I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

I use Amazon S3 mostly to store files. Instead of storing files in a blob, I store them in Amazon S3 and give the reference to my database. At any point in time, if I want to process the files, I get them from Amazon and process them.

Amazon S3 is scalable and available. It's particularly useful for archiving data; I can configure it to keep files for six months before archiving them to Glacier. This flexibility in retrieving data or storing it makes it valuable.

Sometimes, there is latency in getting data, especially if the file size is large. This could be improved.

I have been using Amazon S3 for about five years.

There is no need to maintain Amazon S3, although latency can occur when retrieving large files.

Amazon S3 is scalable.

I rate the technical support from Amazon for S3 a ten out of ten.

Positive

Since S3 is cloud-based, the initial setup is very straightforward, without any installation required.

S3 is a pay-as-you-go service. I pay based on the data volume I am using.

I rate Amazon S3 overall ten points out of ten. 

For handling data retrieval and access management in S3, I use IAMs to specify who can access data and what actions they can perform. One potential drawback is related to the naming of the S3 buckets. Bucket names are global, not local, which means if someone else attempts to access a bucket with the same name, I could be charged for their access attempt.

Amazon S3 is used for storage service. It's designed for 99.9% durability; hence, our data is highly protected against failures.

The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 is the data transfer acceleration because it can enable fast, easy, and secure data transfer.

The solution's cost should be improved.

The solution's performance needs to increase for small objects. Amazon S3 is excellent for large projects, but its performance can be comparatively slower for fewer small objects.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

Around 2,000 to 3,000 users use Amazon S3 in our organization.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

While storing data in Amazon S3 is relatively inexpensive, there are costs associated with retrieving or transferring data across continents. Connecting Amazon S3 with real-time applications can increase data retrieval costs.

Amazon S3 is deployed on-cloud in our organization. Our company decided to use Amazon S3 because of its global availability. AWS has multiple data centers around the world.

If you're using the public cloud, using Amazon S3 combined with Amazon S3 Glacier is correct. The data will be stored in Amazon S3 storage, and the cost will increase. Instead of keeping the data in Amazon S3, putting the archive file in Amazon S3 Glacier is better.

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

We have multiple use cases for Amazon S3. We use Amazon S3 for storing static data and as a static site load balancer.

Amazon S3 could improve the load balancers. They are very basic compared to other solutions in the industry, such as F5. It has to be able to be analyzed up to a certain level. 

The basic features need some improvement, users should not have to use any third-party solutions, Amazon S3 should provide those particular features. The feature at present does not suffice most of the requirements of an enterprise-class organization.

The security could improve in Amazon S3. I am not seeing any value in the solution in security.

I have been using Amazon S3 for more than two and a half years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. However, it could be changed to make it much better than it is today.

We have approximately 25 projects that are using this solution.

We have 24/h support from Amazon S3 and their support has been very good. We have had quick response times. Within two to three days our issue gets resolved.

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is of a medium level of difficulty. It's not easy or difficult. There are certain things that need to change from a documentation perspective, or from an ease of use perspective. The configuration needs to be more user-friendly. The full deployment of Amazon S3 took approximately 15 days.

We did the implementation of Amazon S3 in-house.

There is a license to use Amazon S3.

Before doing any project we have criteria sheets to follow, we evaluate any solution on-premise or on the cloud. We compare all the cloud solutions, such as Oracle, Azure, and GCP, and whichever solution we find better for our requirement, we design a solution using it.

Our main corporate website is posted on Amazon S3 and our evaluations determined Amazon S3 was the best solution for our use case. This is why we choose it.

My advice to others is Amazon S3 is a good solution. However, it depends on the use case that you have. This will determine if this solution is the best fit or if another solution would be better. The requirements of your use case have to be met.

I rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten.

We use S3 buckets to store logs from the application side. The logs stay on the server for seven days. After that, we transfer them to the S3 bucket, depending on the application, and the logs help us correctly troubleshoot problems. 

We can also host web apps in the historical bug bucket. If you have a domain name from Route 53, you can create a bug bucket over there and whatever is in the web applications folder. About 40 people at my company use S3. 

You don't have to specify your clone, availability clone, or your locations. Everything's over there. They have a receipt for the instance where we have to select the exact location of what we are clicking. The S3 storage capacity is high, and the price is reasonable. 

The free web and DB hosting could be improved. It could be faster when you download huge files from the S3 bucket to your local system. If the S3 bucket availability and performance could be improved, we would consider hosting our database over there. 

We have worked with AWS for two or three years. 

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10 for stability. 

We usually don't need much help unless we experience some technical glitches. Amazon has helped us in those instances.

Positive

You can deploy the solution in under 10 minutes. 

The price is based on the size of your files and how long they will be retained. If you want something like a grade 2 segment and 10 GB of data transfers, it's around $0.5. 

We use S3 because all of our applications are on AWS. We have to use everything on the same cloud platform. The cost will be too high if you need to configure things to work across multiple cloud providers. It's highly complicated and expensive to set up cross-routing.  

I rate Amazon S3 eight out of 10. It's highly stable, scalable, and cost-effective. I recommend S3 depending on the customer's requirements. It's good if you need to store a large amount of read-only data. It isn't for block storage that you need to edit, but it's good for storing application logs.