Amazon EC2 Reviews

Our primary use case is for migrating Linux boxes to Windows boxes. We deal mainly with small and medium-sized businesses that are looking to move away from on-prem hardware to the cloud. We are customers and I'm an MSP architect.

The most valuable feature of this product is its reliability. Its ethernet configuration is stable and they provide good technical support. 

I'd like to see more tools to help our clients minimize their costs. The company could provide tips on savings. A couple of our clients have taken a pay-as-you-go model when they configure and they're paying a lot more money than they need to. 

The solution is stable as is the backend infrastructure.

The scalability is good whether you scale horizontally or vertically. A couple of clients scale out horizontally and the load balances help with that. 

Customer support is actually quite good. They've been able to fix or guide me on the solution.

I have experience with this product so the initial setup is easy for me. Some small businesses have their IT people, but others don't have the knowledge so I carry out an assessment for them. My medium sized clients have a couple of IT people who maintain the network side of things and the instances or the server aspect. If they have applications, then they have their own application people that take care of the application. Maintenance requires around three to five people. 

The cost varies depending on how many instances you have and how long you run it. Our most recent customers were running around four instances, and their bill was between $1,500 to $2,000.

It's important to have somebody familiar with the solution on board, especially if it's an organization that wants to move quickly. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We had a client which has a legacy application that wanted to move to the cloud without a cloud-native solution. What they did was they moved to Amazon EC2 and asked for virtual machines. They had an Oracle database and licenses, they were all provided by the client, and then they all moved to the Amazon EC2 environment.

Amazon EC2's most valuable feature I have heard from clients is easy provisioning. Provisioning is very quick and easy.

Amazon EC2 could improve by reducing the price.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately two years.

Amazon EC2 is stable.

The scalability of Amazon EC2 is good.

Our client was a large company with approximately 1,000 using the solution.

The support from Amazon EC2 is good. 

The ROI is similar to an on-premise version of my client's operations.

The clients have found the billing of Amazon EC2 good, but the price could be less high. There is a monthly subscription to use the solution.

We have difficulty convincing potential clients of the benefits of using Amazon EC2, from their on-premise setup, when the cost is similar. They don't see the benefits. We face a lot of issues convincing them

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon EC2 an eight out of ten.

We use EC2 for test and dev environments.

EC2 has the typical advantages of using the cloud. It's easy to provision and set up.

I would like to see more variety in the operating system images used to create test environments in EC2. There should be more versions and releases. Sometimes, you want to test an update from an old release to a higher version, but you can’t do that with the new images available. You have to use your own.

I have used EC2 for three or four years.

Amazon EC2 is stable.

EC2 is scalable. There is an auto-scale setting in the configuration.

I've never had to use tech support. I think most of the documentation is adequate.

Setting up EC2 is straightforward. It takes a few minutes, and you can do it by yourself.

Pricing is based on consumption, so when we don't want to use it, we just turn it off. The expense is negligible.

We pay for a monthly license. The price is fair.

I would rate Amazon EC2 nine out of 10.

EC2 and VPC are two services that are quite interconnected. EC2 is the Amazon console that uses the host resources in the data centers to launch servers,  instances and services with VPC as the networking part. 

This is a great solution that's stable, scalable and simple to implement. 

We sometimes need to change the resource service levels, whether it's to expand or contract. Amazon doesn't offer that option so the way things work now, changes can't be made without scheduling downtime or preventing users from using the service for a period while changes are made. I would like to see servers upgrading or downgrading on the fly without the end user even noticing the change. It would be life-changing for us. 

I've been using this solution for about four years. 

The solution is very stable. There are instances storage servers distributed on multiple hosts in the data centers and even if there's a failure we're unaware of the disruptions. The solution is stable 24/7, 365 days a year, and we know we can rely on it.

The solution is scalable, we have over 1,000 users. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

Licensing costs are paid monthly for the whole package. That includes the resources that the server is utilizing, plus the operating system along with any database license, such as Microsoft SQL, that you are using. It's quite expensive.

This is an amazing solution although it's not suitable for every company.
They lose one point because the price is quite high so I rate this product nine out of 10. 

Amazon EC2 is used if you are looking for a process serving cloud service.

The best features of Amazon EC2 are its high performance and security.

Amazon EC2 could improve its dashboards and UI, they need to be more user-friendly.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately five years.

Amazon EC2 is a stable and reliable

Amazon EC2 is a highly scalable solution.

We have over 100 users using this solution and we have plans to increase the usage.

The support from Amazon EC2 is good.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is straightforward. It only took us a few minutes to complete.

We did the implementation ourselves.

We do not need a special team to implement this solution. 

Amazon EC2 has a pay-as-you-use cost model.

Amazon EC2 is the right choice for cloud services processing.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine 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.

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.