Amazon EC2 Reviews

We are using EC2 only for our test and backup servers, not really as a proxy server. Few users are working with EC2. It's only 10 people.

EC2 provides a lot of flexibility. If you don't want to have a separate on-premise database, you can put it on the cloud with EC2. You can adjust the instance type according to your needs. You select a size and get a certain amount of specific memory, CPUs, etc. You set the redirect limit, and from there, you install the software, database servers, application servers, and whatever you want. 

The monitoring part could be improved. When we're building and configuring things or doing database replication, EC2's monitoring could provide more information. It's hard to find the information I need in the graphs they provide.

I've been using EC2 for about seven years.

Amazon support is good.

We didn't switch to EC2 per se. We are still using all the solutions we had before. We still have our on-premise databases.

Installing EC2 is straightforward. You set your user access and build it. It only takes about 10 to 20 minutes next. A single person can deploy it.

EC2 costs more than typical on-prem solutions, but there are tradeoffs because you can reduce infrastructure and staffing costs.

The price of EC2 is on the higher end. There is no license. You pay for server data and usage like Amazon RDS.

I rate Amazon EC2 10 out of 10. I highly recommend EC2. You should go for it if you can afford it.

I am using Amazon EC2 for computing applications in the cloud.

The most valuable features of Amazon EC2 are ease of use and the services offered.

Regional acceleration could improve. If I am hosting a website and I want the experience to be faster they should have this feature to allow for increased speeds.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately eight years.

The solution has been stable in my usage. 

The scalability of Amazon EC2 is good.

I have not used another similar solution to Amazon EC2.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is not difficult. We find out the requirements that are needed to then implement the solution to meet those needs.

The price of Amazon EC2 could improve. The Google Cloud Platform is more cost-effective.

We pay for Amazon EC2 monthly.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

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. 

I am using Amazon EC2 for migration of on-premise to the cloud.

Our objective is to assist our customers in transitioning their infrastructure to Amazon AWS or another cloud provider. We aim to alleviate their workload by migrating to Amazon EC2. The initial phase involves utilizing Amazon EC2.

The greatest benefit of Amazon EC2 is its versatility, including the diverse range of servers available and the ability to connect to various resources.

Amazon EC2 could improve the console view. The ability to see the console view directly would be helpful, similar to what VMware has. Additionally, when the system is rebooting we are able to see a screenshot of the UI, but it would be a lot better if we could interact directly with the console level.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

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

Amazon EC2 scales well.

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

I rate the support from Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have seen a return on investment using Amazon EC2, but I am not sure about our customers. We see the flexibility of the solution where our customers do not.

The licensing of Amazon EC2 is expensive. Microsoft Windows Servers are expensive to license.

If you're planning to use Amazon EC2, I recommend thoroughly testing your servers beforehand. This is especially important if you're migrating from an existing server to Amazon EC2, as there can be issues with transferring the entire image. To avoid any problems, make sure to test the image you're importing before the migration process.

I rate Amazon EC2 an eight out of ten.

I gave my rating of eight because they are lacking in console access.

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 use the solution to host a web server or a demo server. Also, we use it as a restored target for disaster recovery.

The solution has ease of deployment and good documentation.

The solution could provide a console view. When booting up the machine, you can't see anything happening until it's booted up. You don't get to see what's happening if it freezes while starting.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for seven years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is excellent.

Two users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

We contacted technical support for importing an instance but we didn't get a resolution.

We chose Amazon EC2 because of easy management.

The initial setup is a little complex.

We did the deployment by ourselves with a bit of training. The deployment depends on the project, but it can be done quickly.

There is no cost involved for EC2, but sometimes you need to pay for products you run within it.

You need to pay additional costs If you're using a lot of outbound Bandwidth. It is difficult to predict the cost, so I suggest setting up account budgets and notifications if you exceed your budget.

Depending upon the use case, it is suitable for disaster recovery. I recommend users set up usage limits or track budgets on-site.

Amazon EC2 has been functional. We repatriate some stuff in-house because of the ongoing costs.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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 have a team to manage cloud solutions. My company uses the tool for cloud monitoring. We have a production, staging, deployment, and testing environment in AWS. However, we do not use the managed service of AWS yet. My team uses the required parameters for security like VPC, firewall, gates of security as well as the external layer of the app.

The features depend on the use cases. We have different family types for computing. There is the R series for databases. For general purposes, there are the N series and the C series. RCE is for DL based kinds of things.

The tool’s stability could be better.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable and I would rate it a seven out of ten. My company is practicing to improve the architecture as per the requirements.

The solution is scalable. We have already implemented the requirements of production in frontend ALBs. This will help us move as per the request of the microservice and monolithic parts. There are more than 700-800 users for the tool in our company. Our company’s departments use it for different applications.

We manage and do everything on our own. In case we are stuck at any point, we buy tech support from AWS.

The initial setup is both straightforward and complex. The tool’s Microsoft base and microservices parts are complex while the other monolithic base is really good. The solution’s monolithic base architecture is simple and straightforward.

We use cloud permission for SaaS code and services for which there are templates. My team needs an hour to deploy the entire architecture for any new project. We are able to create insights for new projects.

We have templates on the cloud solution where my team checks the requirements. After pushing the parameters, we can create a new structure for the project in an hour or so. There is no need to manually create or increase anything.

We have in-house strength to do the deployment. My team upgrades themselves with certificate education. Our company doesn’t need third-party support right now. If anything critical arises, then we will buy AWS credit for the support from them.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I like the product’s performance. We have a different methodology where we check the work and evaluate how it is beneficial and how we can reduce the costs. My company is working on this. We use the solution for temporary use cases. My team uses it to build, produce and monitor the cloud versions. If there is a need to scale up or down, we will do that. Amazon EC2 has auto-load elastic LV.

The solution is stable and we have never faced any downtime with it. We also have an alarm system where we get ticket notifications. Our applications have never been down and we are happy with Amazon EC2.