Amazon EC2 Reviews

We use Amazon EC2 for running containerized applications and as a server. It is a core component of our operations, supporting multiple platforms like ECS and EKS. Additionally, we're planning to use it for AI-driven projects.

Amazon EC2 helps us maintain high availability for our services. It provides the ability to quickly spin up new servers, which is crucial for keeping production workloads running smoothly, especially when encountering service crashes. The high stability of EC2 also makes it a reliable component of our operations.

The ability to quickly spin up servers is crucial. Amazon EC2's flexibility and ease of configuration were found to be very valuable. The solution is versatile, integrating well with other AWS services such as ECS and EKS and supporting security and authentication with Identity and Access Management.

The pricing model could be improved. We found Amazon EC2 to be pricey.

We have been using the solution for four years.

The stability of Amazon EC2 is perfect. It is a ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as a five out of ten since EC2 itself does not scale; additional services are required for scalability.

We have never needed technical support since the documentation is usually sufficient.

Positive

We have used Fargate before. However, it wasn't sufficient for our needs due to certain limitations.

The initial setup is easy. I would rate it as ten out of ten. We follow our deployments via code, which is automated.

We handle deployment internally with just one person running the pipeline.

The main value we have gained is the ability to consistently service our customers.

We are paying about $1,500 a month for one of the services. I'd rate the pricing as six out of ten for being expensive.

We have not considered alternate solutions since everything we do is on AWS, and we couldn't think of leaving AWS.

Make sure to choose the right instances for your workloads to avoid overpaying. Ensure that you are consistently patching and upgrading your operating systems to avoid vulnerabilities.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We are using EC2 for a couple of things. We have integration with Control-M. We have on-prem integration with the on-prem Control-M systems, and we are using EC2 for that. We are also using EC2 for ECS as a worker node.

I like the AMI-related features. A very good feature of this solution is the customizable AMI. It is a very good feature provided by Amazon. The encryption technologies are also very good. We are using KMS, etc.

Load balancing of EC2 is another good feature. If we have a group of EC2s, automated load balancing or auto-scaling is there. Auto Scaling features are very good features.

The connectivity with on-prem is also very much supported. We didn't face any problems there. We had a requirement to integrate with the Control-M system, which transfers the files from one system to another system. For some reason, we were not able to use the ready-made or out-of-box feature provided by Amazon. We had to basically simulate the whole thing with EC2, and we didn't face any problems with this integration.

Another good feature is that we can go and create EC2 over the cloud service. It has also been very useful for data science purposes.

They can build automatic features for ENSS or network drive. They have the Control-M feature. Similarly, they should have a feature for the network drive that can be mapped. I have not seen such a feature. They have a lot of products but those are quite costly. There is no cheaper option available for the EC2 instance for syncing two drives. If these features are available, it would be good.

It is stable. So far, there have been no issues. I didn't get any complaints regarding EC2.

There might be more than 200 people working on EC2.

I didn't contact them for this solution.

It is straightforward. When I first brought up the EC2 instance, I was still learning, and it hardly took 5 to 10 minutes.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I'm using this solution for my company. We use multiple versions according to our needs and different types of instances and OS, like Windows, Linux, or auto-based.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

We have collaborated with AWS on different new service launches and POC, but we are not partners officially. We are a third party.

The most valuable features are the scalability options, low maintenance, and options to upgrade. AWS support is also pretty good. The generation upgrade is pretty simple and standardized. Earlier when I gave a review, we were struggling with it, but now the process is straightforward and standardized. We would love it to be automated, but the way it is right now is okay.

We buy EC2 instances, we buy OS, and we also pay for OS licenses. Support doesn't share or give insights on OS-based issues. That needs to improve because if someone is buying an EC2 instance with the Windows server and SQL license, the client expects that there will be a minimum level of support. We are not looking for Dell support or troubleshooting, but we definitely look for issues that are complex at the OS level, generally.

We would also like to see a better logging mechanism, which can be helpful for the product or generation. An additional feature should be better OS-level support for loggings, which are visible only to AWS support. There should be a way to at least have admin-level access to those so that we can analyze better, or if they come up with the automated generation upgrade. Once you deploy those solutions, you end up using them for years, and in that generation change for those EC2 instances happen. So, automating those will be key.

I have been working with this solution for almost five months.

Support is pretty good.

I have had a little bit of experience with Microsoft Azure. We evaluated it directly in the cloud.

If we compare different cloud providers, Microsoft has its own advantages, but EC2 is catching up quickly.

The advantage Microsoft has just depends on the typical use case. If you are a Microsoft customer and have been a customer for a few years, then you will probably find it easier to handle Azure than AWS. AWS has its certified AMIs available. But native support of Azure is better in terms of those technologies. Similarly, people generally find that AWS is a bit cheaper, but there are personal preferences or design concepts, which will be handled better depending upon the use case or tech stack in different cloud providers.

Gradually, it has improved. Initially, it was complex but it's pretty standard now. It will depend upon who is installing it, their experience, and their familiarity with that cloud provider. Given that we have two rounds of experience, we found it to be pretty straightforward. If someone is new to AWS, it will probably take more time.

The price is reasonable, but there is definitely an opportunity to lower it in instances which are of a higher configuration, because they have been typically used for the long term. There should be custom plans that cater to certain customers who have their uses. The reserved instances prices for SQL server are not that great. We definitely look for such things. 

We are exploring different managed database services, like RDS and Serverless Aurora. There is a scope of implementation on those services, which are pretty new, and most capabilities which are available in instance-based services are not available in Aurora Serverless.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

I will say AWS EC2 is a great place to start. Microsoft Azure is also good. The solution will be dependent upon the exact use case, but AWS EC2 is a good place to start.

I use it for NextCloud and for developer purposes. Mainly, I've got pipelines and Go CD pipelines.

It would be great if Amazon EC2 were available for free. Currently, I only use free resources. To explain, my servers cost me £50 to purchase and configure, resulting in a total cost of £100 per server. In contrast, Amazon EC2 charges me between £500 to £1000 annually for a server.

Therefore, the price could be better, and it could be more affordable. Because I run my own servers, the prices are quite high.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for a year now. 

The stability of the solution is okay. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

It's not easy to set up, but I'm making it easier. I maintain the solution myself. 

 For deploying the Amazon EC2, it's quick and easy. I use a system called Nixos, which creates the whole server for you based on your configuration.

Amazon EC2 is a pay-as-you-go service.

Overall, I would rate the product a one out of ten. I wouldn't recommend other people to use the solution. My issue with Amazon is not with the product but with the company's ethics. I wouldn't trust them with anything so I would rate it a one out of ten. In January 2020, Amazon closed down a billion-dollar company just because it was a competitor to Twitter, and they thought Donald Trump would get an account on it. They broke all their contracts, destroyed the company, and left them unable to recover. That's why I don't trust Amazon as far as I can throw them.

We use Amazon EC2 for our virtual machines. For example, if a client wants thier website to work with WordPress, we can use EC2 to spin up a virtual machine and then run WordPress in that environment.

The flexibility of the security features is what is interesting.

The only issue with EC2 is that it makes it difficult to install an LLS certificate on your WordPress website that you have deployed inside that virtual machine. That becomes complicated. S3 is straightforward. But when you're hosting with EC2 then it becomes a problem.

I would like to see more user-friendly WordPress licensing. I am referring to WordPress LLS certificates. WordPress-hosted websites, otherwise, are very stable because the RDP never has these issues. 

I am a software developer, I also use it to host my own application service. In our company, we also create systems. I use it to run other servers inside an EC2 virtual machine. It's accessible, and it is stable.

I have been working with Amazon EC2 for three years.

Amazon EC2 is very stable. I have no issues with the stability of Amazon EC2.

Amazon EC2 is a scalable solution.

We have two Amazon EC2 clients.

I have never had to use technical support for Amazon Web Services in general.

I am a consultant on all of the services that I have listed. F3, EC2, WorkMail. Obviously, F3 goes with Route 53.

I have been working with all of the products listed for three years.

I am starting from scratch with support and everything.

WorkMail is a bit expensive per user. That is something they must correct.

They provide excellent service, but it is too expensive for South Africans. We are losing clients because the price my clients pay for email alone is nearly equal to the price they pay for an entire Microsoft Office license, which includes email.

Where they will have Microsoft Word and other productivity tools, as well as email. And you will pay nearly that much for an email with WorkMail. It's far too costly. That is unaffordable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It works immediately. It's fast.

You pay as you use it.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon EC2 a seven out of ten.

The scalability and elasticity are helpful. The elastic nature of the product helps us as our need for storage increases. I like the whole product. It gives us peace of mind. We are assured that we will not have performance issues due to hardware failure. I enjoy the freedom to have more space and increase my storage as and when I like. It's a stellar product.

Accessibility must be improved. It is important to know how fast we can get to the solution. It would be nice if the interface would pop up without much loading. The product must be faster and more flexible. It will make a big difference.

I have been using the solution for around one year.

The tool’s stability is good. We chose the product for its stability. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very scalable. I can migrate, move, and convert it into a different machine. We have about 500 customers online. We also have internal users actively using, developing, and testing the tool.

The support team is very responsive. We have a good in-house team. We receive support whenever we need it. It's never been a challenge. It's been a smooth experience.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment took about a week.

We have seen an ROI on the tool. The cloud solution is more expensive than the on-premise products. However, the tool provides a lot of surety for infrastructure, business continuity, and disaster recovery. It would be much more expensive for me to deal with business continuity and disaster recovery in-house for an on-premise tool. We have not achieved break-even yet, but we are happy with how our customers respond and the service they receive. It is more important to us for now.

We pay a monthly subscription fee. The price can be improved.

We deal with customers. The data is critical for us. People who want to use the solution must just start using it and get familiar with it. It will make all the difference in the world. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We are using Amazon EC2 for two purposes for our customers, hosting the platform and storing assets.

If we were not able to use Amazon EC2, our customers would not be able to use the services we provide. The solution is critical for the services we provide.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 is the computing capacity.

The scalability could improve.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

We have not had any issues.

I rate the stability of Amazon EC2 a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable and flexible. However, it could improve.

We have approximately three instances running internally. We are expected to have more customers using this solution in the future.

I rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is easy.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon EC2.

When we did the deployment of Amazon EC2 we found it to be less expensive than other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a server. 

The scalability is very good. 

It is very stable. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We'd like to be able to scale without turning down the EC2 server. As of now, we have to turn it off in order to scale resources and then turn it on again. We'd like to upgrade and/or downgrade the server without shutting it down.

It is a little too expensive.

I've used the solution for a year or two. I haven't used it for that long. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is very scalable. I'd rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

I've never used the solution's technical support.

I'm also familiar with other cloud providers. 

The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is not overly complex. I'd rate the ease of setup eight out of ten.

I've found the pricing to be very expensive. I find it pricey compared to other options. 

We're customers and end-users.

I'd advise new users to practice sizing and try to keep their environment according to their needs. If you have an oversized server, it will cost too much money.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten overall.