Amazon S3 Reviews

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.

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 use the solution in my company mostly to store files. It is a file storage service.

I use many features in the tool, including data life cycle, automatic cleanup, and life cycle policies. I also use the tool's single-pane-of-glass view and dashboard. I don't know specifically what the important features are in the tool. The durability and availability features of Amazon S3 are amazing.

Everything around visibility, dashboards, and all of the statistics through which the tool provides information 24 hours a day means that it is not done on a real-time basis. It's sometimes needed for users to see some real-time information immediately and not have to wait for 24t hours till a report is generated. For me, getting reports on a real-time basis is critical, and it is an area that is missing in Amazon S3.

For the cleanup policy, when I opened a couple of tickets with the tool's support team, I did not get any clear information on how to deal with the restoration part. When my company approached the tool's technical support with some questions about how to organize data, view it, and how it is distributed across the buckets, we did not receive any clear answers. The tool's support team needs to improve.

I have been using Amazon S3 for ten years. I am an end user of the solution.

It is a very good and stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The tool offers great scalability to its users. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

At least half of my organization uses the tool. Most of our company's applications deploy, provide, or utilize the services offered by Amazon S3.

The tool is used on a daily basis.

For the service provided by the solution's technical support, I rate the technical support a six to seven out of ten.

Neutral

With Amazon, you don't have any other equivalent services, so Amazon S3 is a standard tool to use. In other environments, very different services, very similar to Amazon S3, are present on GCP and Azure. On other platforms, we use the services provided by other clouds.

The product's initial setup phase is very easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. The tool can be deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a few seconds.

Speaking about whether I have seen an ROI from using the tool, I would say that I know that it contains life cycle policies.

The tool's price is a little bit high, but it is reasonable.

The product is very deeply integrated with some of the tools that I use in my company. Amazon S3 is a part of the platform applications that we create and provide to customers.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

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 use Amazon S3 for storing documents and hosting website content.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the performance and hibernation data options. Additionally, there is a feature that provides faster website access that is helpful.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately two years.

My advice to others is for them to read a lot of articles on the internet as much as possible. There is a lot of information available on the internet.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We have 10 people using the solution in my organization.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. We have not used a large amount of data to fully test the capabilities of the scalability. However, it worked well for our needs.

We have used the support from Amazon S3. The support is expensive and could be reduced.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward. However, understanding the policies for the first time can take some time to figure out.

The time it takes for the deployment of the solution depends on many factors. The process can be quick.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house. There are a lot of articles and documentation available for implementation.

The cost of Amazon S3 is low. For R & D purposes there is a free option available. There is a license needed to use the solution.

I have been satisfied with the storage overall price.

Amazon S3 is 99.99 percent stable. We have never had an issue.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to store data from our analyses. More than 90% of our employees use the solution because our whole system and services are on the cloud. 

The solution and all AWS products have improved our productivity because the infrastructure is always available. You just pull a service and start using it. 

The infrastructure is always available so use can start using services immediately. 

The solution is easy to use for anyone with minimal technical knowledge. 

There are some scalability limitations. 

I have been using the solution for awhile. 

The solution is stable with no issues. 

We know there are some scalability limitations but we have not yet reached them. 

We previously used an on-premises solution. 

The setup is easy but it depends on what you would like to handle. There are different policies and selections but all of it is definitely easy. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is very simple and easy to use. It is pretty much the same as CloudWatch in that regard. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

My use case for Amazon S3 is storage, particularly for unstructured data.

What I found most valuable in Amazon S3 is its versioning feature.

I also like that you can create pre-signed URLs on the solution.

The query size in Amazon S3 has room for improvement because it's limited. Querying on Amazon S3 is also expensive with Amazon Athena, so that's another area for improvement in the solution.

I have two years of experience with Amazon S3. I've been using the solution continuously.

Regarding stability, I'm rating Amazon S3 eight out of ten.

My rating for Amazon S3 scalability is eight out of ten.

I didn't encounter any issues with Amazon S3, so I have yet to contact the technical support team.

Setting up Amazon S3 was very straightforward.

The ROI from Amazon S3 is good.

The pricing for Amazon S3 is reasonable, so price-wise, it's a seven out of ten.

In my company, one person deployed Amazon S3. That person is also in charge of maintenance.

There's a possibility of increasing Amazon S3 usage in the future. Still, that depends on how much GB my company uses. It depends on the use cases.

I advise anyone planning to implement Amazon S3 to stick to the basics and follow the documentation to learn how to set it up.

My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten because it's a very good solution.

Our company uses the solution for backups, data pumps, files, and logs. Our projects connect to the solution rather than individual users connecting to it. 

The solution is within the Amazon architecture so it easily connects with the cloud, hardware, or other services to move data. We do not need to connect to direct services to download data. 

The solution requires you to buy and use Amazon services. 

The solution could be more auto functional. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The stability is good so I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. It is easy to add gigabytes or more users and is more a question of budget. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup is very easy. Every junior Dev Ops can set up the solution and use data storage. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

There is no deployment because it is a data storage solution. 

The solution is very inexpensive at 50 cents per gigabyte, per month. 

Some packages or discounts are available. Big companies can use the solution for free. 

You can use the solution for projects that are within the Amazon architecture. 

You cannot use the solution if you have your own services or data centers because it is dependent on the Amazon architecture. 

If you have a service such as Azure in Amazon, then you can use the stream but not the solution directly. 

The solution is great for data and cloud storage. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten.  

We use Amazon S3 primarily as a repository for storing objects such as images and files. It serves as a storage solution where we can efficiently save and manage the data we collect.

Lifecycle policies in Amazon S3 is an important feature because they help manage transitions effectively. We can monitor how frequently objects are accessed and transition them to more cost-effective storage tiers. Additionally, the security architecture, including access control policies, is crucial for protecting our data. These three features—lifecycle management, cost-effective storage transitions, and robust security

From a pricing perspective, there’s still room for improvement, especially for smaller or startup entities that are very cost-conscious. If Amazon could repackage their S3 products to be more affordable and appealing for these smaller users, it could attract more customers, particularly at the lower end of the market. 

You can easily add more space as needed, and you can leverage the available metrics to set up alerts for when utilization reaches certain thresholds. It is highly scalable.

Our internal staff population exceeds one hundred. However, the number of clients accessing the application has surpassed ten thousand and continues to grow.

There are occasional support issues where parts of the application might misbehave, often after scheduled upgrades. When this happens, we need to raise a support ticket. However, the team has been very agile in addressing these issues and quickly resolving them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I have a DevOps team that handles the setup and management tasks. By the time I joined, a lot of the S3 configurations were already in place. For the few instances where we needed to set up S3, it involved just a few clicks. As the Chief Technical Officer, I focus on architecting solutions and providing guidance, while the DevOps team implements them. Overall, the process has been seamless.

For disaster recovery, we're just starting to implement our strategy. Amazon fulfills its part of the shared responsibility model by providing highly available infrastructure, including data redundancy and regional instance deployment. Their infrastructure is designed to support high availability, which aligns with their disaster recovery stipulations. We’re still in the process of testing our own disaster recovery plans, including running full-scale disaster scenarios to ensure we meet our recovery time objectives (MTTR) and recovery point objectives (MTTD). Although we haven't experienced any outages or data loss since starting operations, we are content with Amazon's disaster recovery infrastructure and will continue to build and test our own processes at our own pace.

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

I use the solution for the storage of images and documents.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that I mostly used the tool's free tier version, so I like the fact that its cost is very low.

Recently, I was trying to clean up the data because I have a lot of old, unused objects and images. I am trying to identify the files with the highest sizes and determine if I need to keep them or delete them. I didn't find the user interface very friendly. Beyond 399 or 999 objects, the tool's user interface was not allowing me to use the sort option. I had to use various keywords to search phrases and shortlist them so that I got less than 399 objects and could use the sort option. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

I have been using Amazon S3 for around three years. I think two years back, I was in a different organization, which was an AWS partner. I am a customer of the tool.

It is a stable solution.

The solution's technical support is satisfactory. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

In my previous job, I used Sagemaker, but I don't use it currently. I have also used Amazon EC2 and CloudWatch for billing alerts or something that I might have set them up in the company.

The product's deployment phase is quite comfortable with no issues. The tool's maintenance part is fairly easy.

I don't use it that frequently, so I think it's too early to comment on the tool's pricing structure. Six months later, I may have more data related to the tool.

I can't comment on the pricing part of the product since I don't deal with a high workload for now.

I use the tool's free tier. I believe that there is a need to make annual payments towards the licensing charges associated with the product.

Speaking of the process for retrieving data with the help of the tool, I would say that it is used to just display images on a website. When the page is opened, it gets linked to images and I display it on the website using Amazon S3.

I did not face any performance issues with Amazon S3.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.