Amazon S3 Reviews

We are using Amazon S3 for image and video files.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are compatibility and reliability.

Amazon S3 could improve by providing some type of storage notification.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately 18 months.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good.

We have approximately 500 people using the solution and plan to increase usage.

I have used the support from Amazon S3. The speed of the support could be faster.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward. The time it took for implementation took approximately one week,

We used an integrator for the implementation of Amazon S3.

We have approximately three administrators that do the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

The price of Amazon S3 is competitive with other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine 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.

We predominantly use this solution for our data storage, primarily making DB backups. I'm a lead data engineer.

The product is easy to use, very intuitive, fast and quite flexible. We can manage access and controls using Amazon policies so it's very secure and provides secure implementation methods. All those features help our day-to-day processes and functionalities. 

File versioning could be improved and I'd like to see some additional security features.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We haven't had any downtime in the years we've been using this product. We also have disaster recovery setups but haven't needed them.

Scalability is pretty good, we have over 100 plus users, and inherently all our applications interact with S3. We use it heavily, it's our main storage medium.

The tech support is very good. We had some help with the configuration and some of our niche use cases and more complex aspects of the implementation. Apart from that, we've rarely needed any S3 support because the UI and the functionality itself are straightforward so you don't need to go beyond the standard documentation provided.

We're a small organization and previously had an on-prem solution that was more expensive for us with a lot of overheads. It didn't make sense to continue using it. 

It's a simple deployment once you get the hang of it. We had two people managing the deployment. You can develop your own templates for repeated actions and automate repeat jobs. It's not complex. We're currently using more than 200 terabytes. We're using three different modes so we're using the solution extensively.

We were able to reduce our licensing costs by exploring the different storage classes and different lifecycle management policies. It's a very good tool to control your costs and automate a few of the routine tasks which typically take significant manual effort when you need to write ad-hoc jobs. The storage is quite cheap although there are some processes that bump up the cost. 

We use it for Dollar Bank to provide them with Telematics and to transport IoT solutions. We host our full term on X-ray and the data we receive from the devices is put into the Amazon S3 bucket by using the Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. The data in the Amazon S3 bucket is synced into Google BigFix.

The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 is storage, which provides a personal capacity. Besides, we can send an analytical query on the data storage side using Aetna as a bucket. It also allows us to expose the data and provide data access depending on who we want to share it with. We can also specify how we want to sort the data inside, in a numerical format or any other format.

An encryption mechanism and storage optimization could be added.

I have been using Amazon S3 for around four years now.

The product is pretty stable. I do not recollect facing any issues with the solution.

Amazon S3 is pretty scalable. I would give it a nine out of ten.

Amazon’s technical support team is awesome. I have interacted with Microsoft Virtual Technical support but the support provided by Amazon is very good.

Positive

I previously used AWS service and SQS but it had a lot of issues.

The initial setup was simple.

For pricing, I would give it a six or seven out of ten.

The analytical capability can be improved.

I would give the solution an eight out of ten.

We are very flexible with our use cases and it fits most clients.

The most valuable feature is the automated replication of the data. You can store things and they automatically replicate somewhere else. So if you have an issue, you have a backup, and that is very good. You can set up how often you want it backed up, and I find that extremely useful.

I would like to see the API for beginners improved because it is hard to understand. It is based on the idea of a container when most programmers just understand directories and subdirectories. For a beginner, the API is a bit confusing.

I have been working with Amazon S3 for the past four years

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is definitely present from hundreds to thousands depending on the client.

I have used other solutions in the past, but none of them are as scalable.

The initial setup If you have the experience is fairly simple. If you do not, then it is fairly complex.

I know it is very inexpensive compared to other solutions.

I would basically recommend that individuals just follow the guidelines AWS as they are very good. I would rate Amazon S3 an eight on a scale of one to 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.

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.