Amazon S3 Reviews

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.

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.

We primarily use the solution for file storage. 

It's a very good solution that makes it easy to save. 

It is easy to set up, and it's cheap. We have to pay as long as it's used, however, it's not so expensive. 

The product can scale.

It's reliable and stable.

My company is in several regions with some offices in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Sometimes we have to concentrate networks to a certain location, like the EU, for example. Therefore, if we set S3 in the EU region from the Middle East or Africa, the latency is an issue and we find it hard to connect to that S3. If we could have a much faster connection, it would be better.

While the price is pretty cheap, it could always be less costly.

I've been using the solution for about three or four years. 

It's very stable and reliable. I'd rate stability almost ten out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have a team of ten on the solution right now. We may increase usage in the future. 

It's a scalable solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten in terms of the ability to expand. 

I've never used support. I'm not in a position to ask for AMazon support. Therefore, I cannot speak to their level of service.

We were only on-premises previously. We've never used a different cloud solution. 

This is a very simple product to set up. It's not overly difficult. The process is quite clear and straightforward. 

The deployment times vary from project to project. Sometimes, you can deploy everything in a day. Sometimes it takes a week. Checking sessions usually take some time. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is very reasonable. We do not find it expensive at all. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee.

I'd rate the pricing five out of ten.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd recommend it to other companies or users. 

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.

Our company uses the solution for deep CI backups. We have thousands of customers who use the solution and access our application. 

The solution is good and includes all the features we expect. 

The solution's pricing should be modified to automatically expand storage based on prior usage. For example, our monthly usage is very low so our storage allotment should be increased by 200%.

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is good so I rate it them a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I did not previously use another solution. 

The setup is very easy. 

The pricing depends on your region and is reasonable. For example, the price per gigabyte is .0025 in the South Pacific and .0023 in Europe.  

We use the solution and EC2 with similar frequency depending on use case. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten. 

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.

We are making custom applications to the cloud.

We are service providers.

In terms of use cases, where a company wants to deploy their applications instead of building their servers on the premise, on the company premise. They can just, instead of buying servers and setting up networks and everything, buy space online on the AWS cloud. That way, you don't have to buy an expensive server. You already have servers online. You deploy your application. That's the main use case we are handling now. For example, if you have an in-house ERP, you want to move everything to the cloud. We migrate clients, for example. from on-premise to the cloud. If you have heavy tasks, there are computations that require heavy, powerful machines.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It’s easy to set up.

Technical support is excellent.

Amazon, especially its cloud, is the best on the market.

It can lower costs as you won’t need physical hardware on-site.

Regarding S3, S2, and E2, all I'd recommend is for pricing to be lower since we can easily overuse them. For example, if a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.

We’ve used the solution for a while.

AWS is very, very stable. It's actually the most stable cloud service for S3, for all the services provided on the cloud. They're very stable. However, compared to others, they are costly.

We started this year, so we haven't gone much into it. We became partners this year. Right now, we only have one client that we have recently started locally in Kenya.

The tech support is good. It's perfect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. AWS is the easiest to set up. It's the best actually among the cloud providers. It’s number one compared to Google Cloud, Oracle, or Microsoft Azure.

It took a few hours to set up.

We are integrators. We are able to handle the setup ourselves.

Their prices are higher than say Microsoft Azure or Google. So AWS is very easy to use yet expensive.

Licensing is pay as you go. The more resources you use, the more you pay, however, they seem to be more costly than competitors.

We have two options for the cloud. We can choose Oracle Cloud or AWS. We take what is suitable depending on the plan and the cost implications.

We became AWS partners this year.

I’d recommend this and any other AWS product to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.