Amazon EC2 Reviews

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.

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. 

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. 

I've used it as a VBI. I've used it as a web application server. I'm also using it as an RGS server.

AWS has always been my go-to for labs, as I can't afford massive machines at home. Therefore, I go to AWS to test new services. It's a space and energy saver. 

The amount of bandwidth has been most valuable. 

It is stable and does not crash.

The product can scale.

Initially, setting up the product is easy.

They have to provide clarity on pricing. It's not transparent. I've never gone to production on AWS, as I've never been clear on what it would cost.

I'd like to test the sign-ons of AWS with Google or Microsoft.

I started using the solution since 2016.

It is very stable. I've never had a machine go down. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'd rate the scalability very high. It can scale to however big you want. 

I've never used technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It is not overly complex. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is too complex. I can't understand it. If I have a service and want to launch in AWS, I need to know what it would cost to run it over the course of the year. I need to know the cost of bandwidth and storage. They need to lay out what they are charging and what clients can expect. 

I did not evaluate other options previously. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I'd advise others to make sure they understand pricing before diving in.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. I really don't have anything bad to say about its capabilities. 

We use the solution to host our backend servers.

The most valuable feature is autoscaling.

I would like the ability to connect SMS to EC2 using the VPC endpoint. Currently in the autoscaling process if we have multiple issues we are not able to connect some of the VPC through the SMS.

I have used the solution for two years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution has an autoscaling feature making it very scalable.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. We follow an internal document for deployment and it takes around 15 minutes to implement.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We are using a pay-as-you-go model.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We require two people for deployment and maintenance.

I recommend the solution to others.

We used it for one of the supply chain products.

Its ease of use is valuable.

Its price can be reduced. I don't see any other area for improvement.

I've been using Amazon EC2 for a couple of years.

It's stable.

It's scalable. In our organization, almost all people are using it. There are about 1,000 people. We have plans to increase its usage.

I've used their technical support, and I am satisfied with their support.

It's worth the investment.

It's expensive, and it could be cheaper.

I'd recommend Amazon EC2 to others. I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

I installed the Windows server using EC2, and I set up some product programs. 

The product is easy to use.

It can scale up.

The product is easy to set up. 

There is no need to have physical space to set up a server in. 

If the solution was cheaper, if the price was less, it would be better. 

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

It is quite a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales very well. People can expand easily.

I'm not sure how many people use the solution. 

I've never contacted technical support. Other colleagues may have; however, I haven't.

We only ever used an on-premises solution. We've never used anything cloud-related. 

The setup is very easy. It's not overly difficult. 

I'm part of the setup and support team. 

We'd like the solution to be cheaper. 

We pay a monthly fee for licensing. I'd rate the pricing five out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We're primarily using the solution for deploying our application.

We like that the cloud features are manageable. We don't need to do anything to manage them.

We don't have to worry about scalability issues or maintenance or security. It's all taken care of.

It's a powerful product, and we can do everything in just a few clicks. 

They could try to improve everything incrementally. They're working on improvements all the time. It would be ideal if they could continue to refine the product so there were fewer and fewer things customers would have to worry about. They could improve their own people so that things like security continue to get better and better. 

They could improve their images. They're working on doing that now. 

The solution is pretty expensive.

I've been using the solution in my current project. It's been more than six months. 

It's a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze it is reliable. 

Most of the cases are using Amazon EC2 in our production deployment, so maybe most of the people are using Amazon EC2 with other features for containers. There are about 90 people on the product right now.

I've never dealt with support. If someone needs to reach out to support, it would be my supervisor, not me. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful they would be. 

We go right to Amazon and create a machine. It takes ten to 20 minutes, so the process is pretty fast in terms of setting up. 

The cost varies from machine to machine. When we create a machine, they estimate how much it will cost. It is more expensive than other products.

We're an Amazon partner. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm on. 

If a new user wants to use Amazon EC2 for their professional work or their deployments, then they need to think about the cost. The cost of the cloud is a bit higher compared to other things. They need to also consider the settings and functionality in Amazon EC2. They really need to look at their use case and scenario. However, it is something worth trying for testing purposes.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's made out life easier. We don't have to worry about scalability or maintenance any longer. It also offers good load balancing and other kinds of features. 

Our company provides customers with business solutions for APIs, data warehousing, and process automation. 

We have many clients and a hybrid model. Certain customers prefer on-premises and the rest run the solution from the cloud.  

The most important aspects are that the solution is scalable and easy to manage.

Amazon provides great services. 

The initial setup could be easier because many keys are required for access. A more concise or shorter cycle for setup is desired. 

I have been using the solution for six months. 

The solution is definitely stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable because it is in the cloud. That is the benefit of moving to cloud-based solutions. 

We have not needed technical support. 

The initial setup is definitely complex. 

We implement the solution for customers. We have a skilled team so deployments are pretty fast with no challenges. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.