AWS Glue Reviews

We're using GPU 0.2 in ten verticals and wanted to use AWS Glue only for one purpose: to optimize Amazon Redshift. 

We have millions of data that we have to back up. Previously, we did it once every six months, but the client data have been very interactive, and we need spontaneous back and forth of data communication in real-time. In one second, we have almost one million records that come and go continuously. The client wanted to keep all data because they're using it for analytics and wanted to back up the data every second without delay. We tried to optimize Amazon Redshift and found out about AWS Glue, which comes with massive costs, but the client is willing to pay.

What I like best about AWS Glue is its real-time data backup feature. Last week, there was a production push, and what used to take almost ten days even to send out around fifty-six thousand emails now takes only two hours.

I also like that the data backup in AWS Glue is spontaneous, and data is recorded and backed up every single moment.

AWS Glue had some issues, which required optimization, particularly in terms of the number of workers you deploy, and that's where costing comes in. Cost-wise, AWS Glue is expensive, so that's an area for improvement. My company did some modifications, which turned out to be successful, so overall, the solution works fine.

Even though there is a backup, you need to know what's happening. You need to understand why there's a failure. AWS Glue doesn't provide the information, so my company uses its logs. The development team also doesn't have specific answers because the team is still playing around with the process, which means the company is still trying to figure out other areas for improvement in AWS Glue.

The process for setting up the solution was also complex, which is another area for improvement.

AWS should provide help during migration and assist its users. Otherwise, it's a nightmare.

I've been using AWS Glue for one and a half months.

AWS Glue is stable, but stability depends on how many workers you deploy and the work that you do.

AWS Glue is highly scalable. It can scale to almost one billion data per second.

We did make some good friends in AWS, so they gave us technical support for AWS Glue for free. They were also new and were trying to evolve, so they provided us with free support, but they'll be charging other clients for the support moving forward.

The setup for AWS Glue is highly complex. The company started with R&D four months ago and only completed the deployment last week.

My company used one and a half FTE resources for the deployment.

The deployment process for AWS Glue was normal and involved CI/CD, but it was mainly the backend dev ops engineers who did it. I'm more of a project manager, so I'm not involved in technical items. It's more of me helping the engineers with the R&D.

AWS Glue is a high-priced solution that bills the client $150,000 to $250,000 annually. That's just the starting price because it's a small data sample, but if it hits over three hundred million users, the cost will probably go up almost thirty times more.

I'm using the latest version of AWS Glue.

I'm not the end-user, as I work for a company that implements AWS Glue for clients.

My company has one client using AWS Glue, but that client has three hundred million users.

I recommend AWS Glue to others because it's an excellent solution. However, it lacks documentation. There's only a little documentation available. Even certified AWS practitioners struggle with the lack of documentation for AWS Glue. You'll find complicated processes or features, such as time series tables. Even if there's documentation, implementing the solution requires many trial and error methods, and revamping becomes a nightmare if you're using the old infrastructure.

My rating for AWS Glue is seven out of ten because of the complexity of the deployment, and the lack of information and documentation, that my company had to do some R&D. If AWS had complete documentation, or sent more than one person to assist my company, then it could have saved more time.

My colleagues work with Spark, PySpark, and Scala as programming languages for writing complex aggregations. They have a repository in order to have a general view of all the sources and jobs on the platform and AWS Glue is very helpful.

AWS Glue is a good solution for developers, they have the ability to write code in different languages and other software.

The interface for AWS Glue could improve, they do not put a lot of details. You can write the code, in PySpark or in Scala, which is a big advantage, it is only easy to use for a developer. It will be difficult for new users to enter the cloud environment.

If business users want to run their own graphs they will not have the opportunity to use such features, such as running code inside AWS Glue in Spark, which will be complex for them.

 I have been using AWS Glue for approximately four years.

AWS Glue is a highly stable solution. We didn't have bugs in production. 

The solution works well with Spark, which is a good framework for large volumes of data. It operates very well.

I rate the stability of AWS Glue a ten out of ten.

The scalability of AWS Glue is great. It was used for enterprise customers. We worked a lot with AWS Glue for International companies.

We have approximately 10 people using AWS Glue in my company.

I have to use the support from AWS Glue. The response time could improve.

I rate the support from AWS Glue a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of AWS Glue is very simple.

AWS Glue uses a pay-as-you-go approach which is helpful. The price of the overall solution is low and is a great advantage.

If I can compare AWS Glue to other solutions, it has the advantage of the cloud, which assures availability and scalability, and the pay-as-you-go is beneficial. This is why many companies are moving from their traditional ETL tools to the cloud because the costs will be reduced dramatically.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate AWS Glue a nine out of ten.

The best feature is the price point. It's pretty cheap as compared to other tools like Informatica, et cetera. That's why major companies are moving to the cloud and using Glue. At least, that's what I found.

The solution is stable and reliable.

You can scale the product if you need to. 

The monitoring is not that good. We'd like to see job progress be more clear. Right now, how we can view that is not that good. The is that mostly it is Python or Scala code based. The UX is lacking.

There is a bit of a learning curve, particularly during the setup process. 

More connectors should be included.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very reliable. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches It works just fine. 

The solution can scale very well. It's not a problem.

Technical support is okay. We tend to go to the partner if we have issues, and they'll go to WS if they need to.

I'm also familiar with Informatica. However, Glue is less expensive. 

In terms of the initial setup, the learning part was a little bit stiff. After that, it is okay. We didn't have any issues once we understood the process. 

We didn't require any outside assistance such as integrators or consultants. We were able to handle it ourselves. 

The price is very good. It's enticing people to move to the cloud. 

That said, I do not have exact information on pricing. 

I'm an AWS engineer. My company is a gold partner.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten. So far, it's quite good. I don't have any complaints.  

We are implementing a solution in AWS for one of our customers. It is more of a data analytics solution. We wanted to process data from different sources and put it into a central repository that can be used for any analysis or predictive modeling.

The most valuable feature of AWS Glue is scalability.

Since AWS Glue is not like an enterprise ETL tool, we need to put quite a lot of effort into customization. The solution has a visual editor, but most ETL transformations cannot be implemented or constructed using that. We always have to do a script. The solution's visual ETL tool is of no use for actual implementation.

I have been using AWS Glue for two years.

I rate AWS Glue an eight out of ten for stability.

Most of our clients for AWS Glue are enterprise businesses.

I rate AWS Glue ten out of ten for scalability.

Nobody from AWS technical support has implementation experience.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's configuration a five and its implementation a two or three out of ten.

The solution's pricing is pay-as-you-go. If you are using the solution for an enterprise business, it will be expensive.

AWS Glue is a cloud-based solution.

Overall, I rate AWS Glue a six out of ten.

Currently, we are utilizing AWS Glue for various ETL workloads, specifically in the life sciences domain. Our primary objective is to acquire data from various sources. Then, we store it in Redshift. This is where the complete use case of AWS Glue comes into the picture.

The solution is highly user-friendly, and its features are easy to use. The new addition of AWS Glue Data Catalog is also very beneficial, making the tool even more helpful for its users.

The solution could be cheaper. The price of the solution is an area that needs improvement.

I have been using AWS Glue in my organization for a year. I am an end-user and a customer of the solution.

It is a stable solution. We have not faced any issues in the past year, so it's pretty stable. Stability-wise, I rate it a ten out of ten.

The solution has proven to be scalable, and from my experience in the data engineering domain, I rate it an eight out of ten. It is worth noting that I may not be the most qualified person to provide a rating since I mostly manage and work on data-related tasks. Currently, approximately 20-25 people in our company use the solution.

I had no experience with the technical support team of AWS Glue.

Previously, I used Azure Data Factory. But I did not find it really helpful. And it was a bit complex. It was not that user-friendly. And I am much more comfortable with the AWS services as compared to Azure services.

The initial setup of the solution is straightforward, and I find it easy to implement. I rate the setup process a nine on a scale of one to ten, where ten is the easiest. As for the deployment process, we usually request our platform team to handle it, and they are quite efficient in deploying and managing the infrastructure. Although I am not directly involved in the deployment process, my understanding is that it can be completed in just a few hours with the help of two to three team members. Our platform team consists of data engineers, architects, and platform engineers who cater to the needs of various projects and products within the AWS ecosystem. Fortunately, the solution does not require any maintenance.

Price-wise, the solution is adequate, and we have no issues with it. We believe that the cost is justified given the number of users and the features it provides. Overall, it can be considered an average-priced tool. I would rate the solution a six or seven on a scale of one to ten, with ten being very expensive. Specifically, I rate its pricing a six out of ten.

Before choosing AWS Glue, I evaluated Azure Data Factory.

I would tell those planning to use AWS Glue to try it. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

I primarily use AWS Glue as a lightweight ETL to migrate our existing on-prem workloads to a cloud environment without looking at a lot of migration paths. 

AWS Glue served the purpose of migrating our on-prem workloads to a cloud environment without involving a heavy load. It ensured that we were able to test every migrated component independently.

AWS Glue's best features are scalability and cloud-based features.

AWS Glue would be improved by making it easier to switch from single to multi-cloud.

I've been using AWS Glue for eighteen months.

I would rate AWS Glue's scalability eight out of ten, as it still has some room to improve.

AWS Glue is straightforward to implement, and you won't see any technical complexity if you're from a development background.

We also considered Airflow, but Glue was a better fit for our engineering-heavy workloads because we wanted a serverless option.

I would rate AWS Glue eight out of ten.

We are primarily using it for batch crossing and transformations.

We have a large set of data and we are doing some transformations and identification. We are cleaning the data and transformations. Then we are putting the data into the destination table. So it is very comfortable.

The most valuable features currently are glue studio, jobs, and triggers.

I would like to see stable libraries at the moment they are not there.

I have been using AWS Glue for the past five years.

The stability I would consider to be an extensible Apache Spark.

The scalability is good and we have three hundred projects we are working with.

Previously, we used EMR, Informatica, Data Pipeline, and Azure Data Factory.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did our deployment in-house with the CI/CD integrations like GitHub and deployed the code on Glue. 

We are seeing a very good return on our investment.

The current cost is around forty to fifty thousand a month.

I would definitely recommend using AWS Glue for batching procedures. I would rate AWS Glue an eight out of ten.

We used AWS Glue to build our data warehouse. We built prototypes to go all the way all across their warehouse platforms. From AWS Glue to Spreadsheets and then QuickSight, that's how we're building their warehouse.

I like that it's flexible, powerful, and allows you to write your own queries and scripts to get the needed transformations.

It would be better if it were more user-friendly. The interesting thing we found is that it was a little strange at the beginning. The way Glue works is not very straightforward. After trying different things, for example, we used just the console to create jobs. Then we realized that things were not working as expected. After researching and learning more, we realized that even though the console creates the script for the ETL processes, you need to modify or write your own script in Spark to do everything you want it to do.

For example, we are pulling data from our source database and our application database, which is in Aurora. From there, we are doing the ETL to transform the data and write the results into Redshift. But what was surprising is that it's almost like whatever you want to do, you can do it with Glue because you have the option to put together your own script. Even though there are many functionalities and many connections, you have the opportunity to write your own queries to do whatever transformations you need to do.

It's a little deceiving that some options are supposed to work in a certain way when you set them up in the console, but then they are not exactly working the right way or not as expected. It would be better if they provided more examples and more documentation on options.

I have been using AWS Glue since last year.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give AWS Glue a nine.