Amazon EC2 Reviews

EC2 is one of the most important AWS services to consider. Its vastness and scalability are exceptional. They are quite impressive.

EC2 has helped us to deploy various Microsoft applications efficiently. It has also facilitated our workstation operations. It serves as one of the primary servers for providing a Java platform within our company. Most of the applications we utilize within our company run on the EC2 platform.

The most valuable feature is the security group. It's the security group.

Additionally, the key management and the entire provisioning system, including the Windows instances, contribute significantly. They are among the main aspects that I find valuable in EC2. 

There should be enhanced accessibility from any standpoint. The accessibility should be increased, particularly in scenarios where accessing the software on the Azure platform from the cloud can be complex. Simplifying this process would be beneficial. There are too many steps involved. 

So, the goal is to enhance the ease of access, especially when dealing with intricate software tasks on the Azure platform.

I have been using this solution for four years. 

The stability is quite robust. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability as a solid ten. The solution scales well both horizontally and vertically. 

The customer service and support are good. 

The experience with the initial setup depends on your familiarity with cloud computing. Personally, with these solution, I've had no issues in terms of deployment, troubleshooting, and conducting various activities. It's been smooth for me.

I see an ROI.

I find the cost to be reasonable. It's fair.

If someone hasn't started using EC2 yet, I'd recommend exploring it. EC2 offers simplicity, robustness, and support for efficient cloud operations. It's a tool that's definitely worth considering.

Overall, I would rate the solution a solid ten on ten. 

My colleagues build applications on the public cloud and whenever expansion in terms of capacity or resources is needed, it's easier to do on Amazon EC2, so this is the use case for the solution.

What I found most valuable in Amazon EC2 is that you only pay for what you use, versus an on-premise deployment that requires you to pay for the cost of the server. When it's on-premise, you'll need to meet more specifications and requirements, and the purchasing process even takes time. As Amazon EC2 is cloud-based, you'll only pay when you use the service.

An area for improvement in Amazon EC2 is the cost because it's a bit higher than competitor pricing.

I've been using Amazon EC2 for many years now, but I can't remember exactly how long it's been.

We didn't encounter any problems in terms of Amazon EC2 stability and connectivity. We're able to release applications without any problems.

Amazon EC2 is a scalable solution. Scalability is the main objective of my company, which is why it went with Amazon EC2. The solution lets you expand your resources, and you can either scale up or scale down your users without any issues.

Amazon has a regional office in Bangkok, so when we need technical support for Amazon EC2, we call Amazon support in Thailand directly.

I'm unsure of whether Amazon EC2 is easy or complex to set up.

The license fee for Amazon EC2 is higher than its competitors.

My company uses AWS products, including cloud services. Amazon EC2 is being used within the company as well.

My company has about ten thousand employees that use Amazon EC2 because everybody connects to the internet. For example, employees use the mail service from the console and Outlook service on the cloud. Everyone uses the internet within the company, so that means Amazon EC2 is being used as well, especially in this COVID situation.

Right now, employees use more applications such as streaming and video services which require more connectivity and cloud capacity, so there's a plan to increase usage for Amazon EC2.

In terms of how much staff is required for the deployment and maintenance of Amazon EC2, I'm not quite sure how much technical staff my company has because some of the technical staff was outsourced. There's no permanent IT staff in the office.

I'm recommending Amazon EC2 to other people because it's a critical product that has more reliability. It has good quality, and it also has many features, so if the features support your use cases, then Amazon EC2 would be a good product for you.

My rating for Amazon EC2 is nine 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.

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 EC2 like a virtual machine. It's like an instant server, so we use it as a separate server. EC2 is flexible when we need to increase its resources (memory, boosting, and storage) based on our usage. That is the power of EC2.

The feature I found most valuable is flexibility in being able to increase resources. It's the most powerful feature. We can increase EC2's resources with just a few simple clicks. We can handle this through the AWS console. It's easier than handling it on a hardware department section or hiring middleware engineers to manage the infrastructure.

My impression is that this is the main power feature of EC2. Before this feature was launched, we would have needed to contact another department or buy hardware. It was quite troublesome. Now, it's on-demand and flexible.

My impression is that the scalability of this product could be improved. My opinion is that, for example, the Lambda solution is much more scalable than EC2.

AWS provides everything to scale and gives you, based on their AI, a suggestion on whether to scale or not. This affects the payment so that is why we cannot scale quickly. It's not managed or scalable by itself. Developers should be able to easily scale EC2.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for about three years.

My impression of the stability of this solution is that it is quite stable. Sometimes, I have to restart it a few times but other than that it seems stable. I'd say 89% stable.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a five, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

The most scalable AWS product is the Lambda function.

If we were to rate the scalability of AWS products and if Lambda were the most scalable and manageable service, EC2 would come in third or fourth place, based on my experience.

I have never used their tech support.

I think the initial setup was very easy. That's the power of using cloud technologies. You can create an EC2 instance in just a few minutes. It's set up, deployed, and automated very easily.

It takes only 10 to 15 minutes to initiate my instance. I work mostly in a development environment so I can manage it as just a development or staging environment. The production environment is managed by another team for security reasons.

Overall, I would rate this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We have a business-to-business platform where we connect micro-enterprises to financial services. The solution is hosted in AWS and also has mobile components on the Google Play Store.

We use authorization on Kubernetes and various AWS services like S3 and databases. The entire suite can host a comprehensive ERP system within AWS.

Some of the good features are, first of all, due to scaling. It ensures we can provision resources on demand, and we can grow and shrink them as per the traffic. 

There are definitely security features around IAM and WAF that ensure the information is secured. There's a lot of encryption across the setups to ensure that database credentials and everything related to security are well managed. Their database product is good, and we are making maximum benefit out of it.

We faced a challenge in regard to billing. There was a time when we were working on changing the mode of payment from card to wire. It took a lot of time because our state is set up in Kenya, so we needed to pay in Kenya currency. We have to go around in circles.  There was a lot of documentation required, but we managed to go through successfully.

I have been using it for one year. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It's a very stable product. 

It is a scalable product because it's IaaS and PaaS. You use it on demand, so it's computing on demand. That works for us. And there are also opportunities for enhanced cost savings in terms of serverless computing. We've used a couple, and at least it's good. So it's helping us to further reduce AWS costs.

The user base is approximately 120. As more users join the platform, the user base will definitely increase.

I've had the best technical support experience I've ever had. Everything is resolved within the service level agreement. I'm happy.

We did it ground up. We started from zero, created the account, set up the control tower, and started provisioning the resources. It was simplistic. It only requires you to have knowledge of AWS infrastructure, and from there, it's a straight sail.

I can't quantify ROI because it varies. Currently, my AWS bills from services that I use across various accounts.

We pay monthly. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

I would suggest using the free tier first. 

It allows us to provision and handle our services. We also have load balancing and auto-scaling as well.

The auto-scaling is great. The solution can scale well.

The solution offers good access policies.

It's stable.

Pricing-wise, it is a bit high. They should lower costs. They raise it every year. It makes it hard to afford. You also have to pay separately for support.

In GCP, we have a console and can run scripts from it. There was browser access on the same window. On EC2, we could not find it. It's not intuitive, the layout of the product.

I've used the solution for three or four years. 

It's a stable product. I'd rate it nine out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. It is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. It can extend rather well.

Technical support from Amazon is a little expensive. 

Positive

It's very easy to set up, and you can easily set up your sizing. 

We're looking for ways to find out how we can decrease the bill. We are running a smaller number of instances to lower our footprint. 

They raise prices yearly. You have to pay extra for support, which is also expensive. 

I am using the latest version as it is on the cloud. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

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.