Amazon S3 Reviews

Our company has 30 staff members who use the solution for data storage. 

Uploads are secure and occur instantly.

The solution provides good data movement from Snowball to the S3 bucket. 

It is difficult to retrieve files in an emergency because the public cloud has data limits for immediate downloads so they often take twelve hours. We need better, immediate control of our content. 

The cloud and on-premises solutions should sync all data. 

Infrastructure services could be improved to provide free education related to the solution's features. For example, developers who do not have experience building games could learn how to do so with free support. 

I have been using the solution for nine years. 

The solution is very stable and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable and there are no limits on data uploads. We upload four TB of data a day. 

Technical support can be challenging because we have to work through account managers. For urgent situations, our tech team contacts support to get assistance. 

I rate support a four out of ten. 

The initial setup and creating buckets are very simple. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

Not many products in the market beat the solution in terms of quality or price. 

The solution charges for data downloads. 

We currently use the public cloud but want to use a private cloud because there are speed issues when retrieving files in an emergency. For example, retrieving emergency video files might take twelve hours because the cloud will not allow immediate downloads. A private cloud will allow us to retrieve files immediately without a data limit. 

We are in talks with GreenLake, Atlassian, and Dell to find the best solution that optimizes our cost. There is a retrieval cost associated with the public cloud so we want to optimize these costs and switch to a private cloud. 

The solution offers great quality and price. We are closely evaluating the cost of other solutions to determine if it is worth it to move from a solution that works well for us. 

Cost is a primary concern because we manage three petabits of data. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Currently, I am a cloud solution architect. I consult with developers and set up the architecture needed to deploy a solution. If a solution needs to be deployed within AWS, we sit down with the client and discuss the services that are most appropriate for that solution and design the architecture, which is given to the review board for approval. The AWS services we consume are dependent on the solution. Users from various departments will use the solution, depending on what's being deployed there. 

We have cold storage here, and I think that's useful. When it comes to commercialization, it's cheaper to put data that you won't be using into the data storage. You only use a little bit of the data needed each day for your transition, so you pay less. 

There could be more flexibility in configuration to allow more ways to connect to outside the PPC.

I started using S3 at my previous company, so I have been using it for five years. 

S3 is very stable.

Amazon S3 is highly scalable.

I rate AWS support 10 out of 10. 

Positive

Setting up S3 is straightforward.  At first, it was difficult because I didn't know how to use the solution. Now it takes less than five minutes to deploy S3. 

A solution architect needs to create a plan for what needs to be deployed, and the developer will deploy the solution. Most of the engagement happens before the deployment when the architect and the developer come to an agreement about the approach. One person procures the services, and others will test them and put them into the live environment.

We deployed the solution with the help of a consultant, who helped us implement some of the heavier stuff in the data lake. However, we did the basic stuff in-house because we've got the VPC to do it ourselves. 

The licensing cost is not bad. However, you need an understanding of the solution you're deploying and the services running. You will save money by shutting down some of the services when they're not in use.

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10. It's an excellent product. I'm also working with it for my personal use. I'm putting my documents and pictures into the S3 bucket.

It is mainly for transferring the files we are using from AWS, where we have to transfer the files from AWS to a non-cloud environment.

The security is the most useful aspect of the product.

We've had no issues with stability.

It can scale well. 

You do need to get training on the setup process. It's not straightforward. 

I've been using the solution for four years now 

The solution is stable and reliable. the performance has been good. It's been problem-free. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It can scale well.

We have about 70 people using the product currently.

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

I don't know much about technical support. I don't deal with that aspect. We have a separate team that handles any issues. 

The initial setup isn't easy. We require training to get up to speed. 

I'm not the person that actually handled the deployment.

I don't have any insights into the exact price of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with its capabilities in general. 

It is not for everybody. Potential users can also evaluate Azure as well as AWS, as both are equally good. If you really need a cloud solution, then obviously there are many in the market. The cost is a top pain factor nowadays.

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 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.

Amazon S3 is our file storage solution. We use it for all of the backups of our storage and databases.

The most useful features of Amazon S3 are the intelligent multipart upload.

Amazon S3 could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately five years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

I have found Amazon S3 very scalable, you can scale it on the fly and it is very easy to do.

Most all the cloud applications that are being used by our developer are using Amazon S3. More than 200 people are using this solution. At this moment we do not plan to increase usage.

I have used the support from Amazon S3 multiple times and they are good.

I have not used any other similar solution to  Amazon S3.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward and the documentation is very good. You can do the setup of Amazon S3 in a few minutes.

We did the implementation ourselves.

The price of the Amazon S3 is low. The license model is based on what you use.

If users are looking for highly scalable, competent solutions, then Amazon S3 would be a good choice.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

I am using Amazon S3 for storing all the organization data, which comes from a data pipeline.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the accuracy and the life cycle policies, which helps when moving from Amazon S3 to Amazon Glacier.

Amazon S3 could improve some of the features, such as indexing, or we should have more information about all the data stored in a single place. This way we can see what data resides where instead of going in different buckets, file locations manually, or searching. An index would be nice, allowing us to directly go to a location to use the date.

I have used Amazon S3 within the last 12 months.

Amazon S3 is 99.99 percent stable. The solution is highly stable.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. If we want more storage we only need to pay extra.

All the workloads of the whole company go to Amazon S3. As our workloads increase, the data increases, and we will use more storage in Amazon S3.

I have not used the support from Amazon S3.

Positive

I have not used another solution similar to Amazon S3.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is not complex. We are only using it for a storage layer and there were not any complexities.

The cost of Amazon S3 is good. The pricing model is based on the usage of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others, it is one of the most used storage solutions.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

I use Amazon S3 mainly for daily backups of our database.

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.

Positive

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. 

When backups are more than 6 months old, I would recommend keeping less of them and storing the remaining ones in Glacier (long-term, cheaper storage).

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 to store data.

Amazon S3 is a storage bucket service with good stability.

The solution's data transfer speed could be improved.

I have been using Amazon S3 for more than three years.

Amazon S3 is an easy-to-scale solution.

Amazon S3 is a cheap solution.

I am using the latest version of Amazon S3. Amazon S3 is a reliable and secure storage bucket service that stores data.

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

We use Amazon S3 for a file storing system. The solution is cloud-based.

We're working with 10-15 applications.

The most valuable feature is the sharing capabilities.

I would like there to be more support without needing to use Transfer Family. 

I have used Amazon S3 for about five years but not at my current organization.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten.

The scalability is good.

I have also used Azure.

The price is okay.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

I would recommend Amazon S3 if you have the use case for it, but Azure provides a similar service.