Amazon S3 Glacier Reviews

I use Amazon S3 Glacier to store large files and documents for long-term archival purposes.

I find Amazon S3 Glacier valuable for storing various documents like purchase orders, standard documents, and drawings. It complements my setup where the files are stored in S3, and the main application is hosted on EC2 containers.

In terms of improvement, I would like to see improved storage capacity and enhanced security features for better protection. The advantage of being on the cloud allows for scalability, so increasing storage as needed would be beneficial.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for a year.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as a perfect ten out of ten. We have approximately 50 users of the solution at our company.

The initial setup is straightforward and it takes less than an hour to deploy it. Deploying Amazon S3 Glacier is straightforward since it is pre-integrated within the cloud platform. There is no need for additional integration efforts, and it is user-friendly, and suitable for average maintenance.

It is more expensive compared to on-premises solutions. Amazon S3 Glacier might seem pricier over three years than on-premise servers, but it has perks like lower upfront costs and no need for internal remote engineers. If treated as an operational expense, the advantages often outweigh the long-term cost.

For those looking to start using Amazon AWS, my advice is to consider AWS Lightsail for a quick and easy deployment. Setting up an account is straightforward, and it is a hassle-free solution. Overall, I would rate Amazon S3 Glacier as a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for long-term backups. We take database backups and synchronize them to Glacier after 30 days. We also use it as part of our disaster recovery.

We sync to S3 and transfer to Glacier. It is a slow system in terms of performance. Also, it's cheap. It takes several hours to retrieve data if you need something from it.

There's no storage limit, and the price is excellent.

Glacier could provide easy browsing.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for five years.

I don't have to monitor the solution.

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

Only I am using this solution.

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

I've used the amazon support.

We have used Egnyte and switched to Amazon S3 Glacier because it is cheap.

The initial setup was easy. I set up a management plan to automatically move old files into Glacier. We already had backups going into S3. So, I configured the system to automatically transfer some of those backups to Glacier storage within minutes.

We did the setup of the solution in-house.

I rate the product’s pricing a one out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Considered whether to archive files before putting them in the cloud.

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

The solution is used for backup purposes. We had it for some of our customers for their static file needs a couple of years ago.

The product is very straightforward. It is the most feature-rich platform. The solution performs well.

The product’s pricing must be improved. It's one of the most pricey object storage solutions on the market.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is scalable. In theory, its scalability is limitless. The product is used by systems. We have implemented it for three to four customers a year ago.

The initial setup is very easy. It takes less than an hour to deploy the tool. To deploy it, we create an AWS account on the portal. Then, we create an object storage bucket, give some permissions to it, and make some configurations on the source platform. If it is a code-based integration, we must give an ARN into our coding platform. If it’s going to be a Veeam platform, we must provide the Veeam platform with a username and password in the configurations.

We pay a monthly license fee for the solution. We pay for what we use. Pricing is the biggest disadvantage of the solution.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use Amazon S3 Glacier for cloud automation to deploy basic and dynamic websites. We can create Terraform for resource provisioning using it. It helps us with cross-region verification of resources.

The product automatically replicates objects from a S3 bucket in one region to another bucket in a different region. If an object or bucket is accidentally deleted in one region, the replicated copy in the other region remains intact, helping to prevent data loss.

They should increase the data limit for the free version or reduce the price. Some of the customers of AWS are students who are trying to learn how to use the right services. These particular improvements will be helpful for them.

We have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for four years now.

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

It is a scalable product. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup process is very simple. It takes a few seconds to complete. However, enabling bucket versioning, which helps with data protection by preserving multiple versions of objects, requires a little extra setup time.

Amazon S3 Glacier is expensive.

I advise others to set up cross-region verification for the S3 bucket. It is crucial to check the amount of data they upload. Companies should carefully evaluate their AWS usage based on specific goals and requirements. Different pricing plans and services may be more suitable for different use cases. They should implement bucket policies that require confirmation or additional steps before deleting files, which can prevent accidental data deletions. It saves a lot of data.

I rate Amazon S3 Glacier a ten out of ten.

We use it for our products, mainly as a source for some data, like a type of S3 bucket.

It's mostly used for current product data, not archival data. We use it for things like customer demos, training for customers, and also storing large configuration files.

The reliability of storage is the main benefit.

The pricing is a bit expensive. There is room for improvement in costs.

I have been using it for a couple of years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is a very scalable solution.

There are around 50 end users using this solution. We do plan to increase the further usage.

The initial setup is straightforward once you get used to it. It's automated for us now, so in that sense, it's very easy.

We need about ten DevOps guys for the deployment. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution. 

I would suggest just go through thorough AWS training and some of the training courseification programs.

We're a tech company, so we use a variety of solutions, but S3 Glacier is what we currently use for the database. 

We use it both internally for our own projects and our clients. We host some projects on Azure and AWS, depending on client requirements.

It's mostly used by enterprises for hosting various solutions.

We get free credits from Amazon, and we like the overall stability. We haven't had to rely heavily on their customer success teams, which is a good sign.

With hyperscalers like Amazon, things are generally pretty smooth. As long as the product is stable, billing is clear, and we don't have issues, we're happy.

Billing issues can be a nightmare. It's tough reaching the right person to get them sorted out.

I have been using this product for about three years. 

It is easy to scale. That's a major reason we use both Azure and AWS. They're very scalable.

We have around 35 end users using this in our company. 

When we have to reach out to them, it becomes an issue. They can improve, but we don't need them frequently anyway.

We don't get the right people right away. They connect us to someone who doesn't know, and then it goes in a loop, and we have to be very patient to find the person who can actually solve our problem.

Positive

We use Microsoft Azure services. But the usage depends on the client or the purpose. 

Some enterprises are typically on Azure, while others prefer AWS. We're cloud-native, so we don't differentiate between the two, but it depends on the client's needs.

My tech team handled it. It was a matter of hours, not days.

One person should be enough.

We have seen an ROI. That's why we're using it. We see value in the return; otherwise, we wouldn't continue.

Mainly on the cost side, It's very easy to use, which leads to cost synergies. That's how we look at it.

If it were cheaper, I'd be happier. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. 

It is a yearly basis license. There are some other services that are linked with it as well. 

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

We use the solution for storing file objects.

The solution’s storage management is good and dynamic.

I have been using this solution for the past year. I’m currently using the latest version.

The product is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten.

The solution is highly scalable. Not individual users, but a specific application is using it within our company. I rate its scalability a perfect ten.

The customer service and support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. With a couple of clicks, you can set up the solution. First, create the S3 bucket and then get the URI. Our DevOps team mostly deals with this area.

We don't pay for licenses. We pay based on consumption data, considering how much data is stored.

I recommend the solution. It's an effective native solution. It should be the first choice for storing files in AWS. Overall, I rate the solution a perfect ten.

I work in a school. We have a lot of graphics, videos, pictures, and multimedia data. We use the solution for data backup.

The product is easy to use. The restoration is not as complicated as we thought it would be. Thankfully, there hasn't been a situation where we had to recover everything.

The stability must be improved.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a six or seven out of ten.

The scalability depends upon the product’s versions. Generally, the tool is scalable. Currently, we are backing up around 9 to 10 TB of our data.

The support is good. The support team is quite helpful.

We need the vendor’s support during the initial setup. The deployment took about five working days. We had to engage with the vendor and have multiple sessions. We scheduled the deployment and got it done.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. The pricing must be improved. The solution must provide discounts for the education sector.

I would recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.