Amazon S3 Reviews

We use Amazon S3 to store source files. We load the data we ingest from the source system into the solution, which is then consumed on Snowflake.

Amazon S3 is very flexible and provides high storage.

No direct connector is available to connect Amazon S3 with other tools like MicroStrategy. So, I have to use a third party and connect to it.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

Around 50 users from the infrastructure team are using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. Although the support team's response time is a little slow, everything else is fine, and they are resolving our issues.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is comparatively difficult because only someone with cloud knowledge can use Amazon S3.

Amazon S3 works on a pay-as-you-go model, and it is worth the money if used to its potential.

The solution is cost-effective because it is based on a pay-as-you-go model, where I can purchase and use it according to my needs.

Our organization chose Amazon S3 because of its scalability, security, and encryption. Since the solution is used for storage, it provides a higher transfer rate to transfer files from one location to another.

Amazon S3 is a good choice for someone with a lot of files and needs a lot of storage with easy computation, scalability, and backups.

Overall, I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

We have multiple use cases for Amazon S3. We use Amazon S3 for storing static data and as a static site load balancer.

Amazon S3 could improve the load balancers. They are very basic compared to other solutions in the industry, such as F5. It has to be able to be analyzed up to a certain level. 

The basic features need some improvement, users should not have to use any third-party solutions, Amazon S3 should provide those particular features. The feature at present does not suffice most of the requirements of an enterprise-class organization.

The security could improve in Amazon S3. I am not seeing any value in the solution in security.

I have been using Amazon S3 for more than two and a half years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. However, it could be changed to make it much better than it is today.

We have approximately 25 projects that are using this solution.

We have 24/h support from Amazon S3 and their support has been very good. We have had quick response times. Within two to three days our issue gets resolved.

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is of a medium level of difficulty. It's not easy or difficult. There are certain things that need to change from a documentation perspective, or from an ease of use perspective. The configuration needs to be more user-friendly. The full deployment of Amazon S3 took approximately 15 days.

We did the implementation of Amazon S3 in-house.

There is a license to use Amazon S3.

Before doing any project we have criteria sheets to follow, we evaluate any solution on-premise or on the cloud. We compare all the cloud solutions, such as Oracle, Azure, and GCP, and whichever solution we find better for our requirement, we design a solution using it.

Our main corporate website is posted on Amazon S3 and our evaluations determined Amazon S3 was the best solution for our use case. This is why we choose it.

My advice to others is Amazon S3 is a good solution. However, it depends on the use case that you have. This will determine if this solution is the best fit or if another solution would be better. The requirements of your use case have to be met.

I rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten.

I am using Amazon S3 for our retail portal sites and data scientist users are using it for analytics and Athena.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the global availability, resiliency, and ease of access control.

Amazon S3 could improve the performance reports. It would be a benefit if they were more comprehensive.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three years.

Amazon S3 stable is very high.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is very good.

We have approximately eight to 10 concurrent users using this solution.

The technical support is good.

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a five out of five.

I previously used Blob Storage in Microsoft Azure. We had a multi-cloud strategy, and we had both solutions available to use. For some projects, we used Amazon S3, and for the others depending on what services they needed to use, we used Microsoft Azure. We got Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure for different projects.

Amazon S3's initial setup is easy, and simple to work with.

I rate the setup of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

Once Amazon S3 is set up, the developers use it for doing analytics and there isn't much in the way of ongoing maintenance.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon S3, we find it inexpensive.

Amazon S3 is straightforward, scalable, and globally available and there are some good security features for making sure control over access is taken care of. I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

We use S3 buckets to store logs from the application side. The logs stay on the server for seven days. After that, we transfer them to the S3 bucket, depending on the application, and the logs help us correctly troubleshoot problems. 

We can also host web apps in the historical bug bucket. If you have a domain name from Route 53, you can create a bug bucket over there and whatever is in the web applications folder. About 40 people at my company use S3. 

You don't have to specify your clone, availability clone, or your locations. Everything's over there. They have a receipt for the instance where we have to select the exact location of what we are clicking. The S3 storage capacity is high, and the price is reasonable. 

The free web and DB hosting could be improved. It could be faster when you download huge files from the S3 bucket to your local system. If the S3 bucket availability and performance could be improved, we would consider hosting our database over there. 

We have worked with AWS for two or three years. 

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10 for stability. 

We usually don't need much help unless we experience some technical glitches. Amazon has helped us in those instances.

Positive

You can deploy the solution in under 10 minutes. 

The price is based on the size of your files and how long they will be retained. If you want something like a grade 2 segment and 10 GB of data transfers, it's around $0.5. 

We use S3 because all of our applications are on AWS. We have to use everything on the same cloud platform. The cost will be too high if you need to configure things to work across multiple cloud providers. It's highly complicated and expensive to set up cross-routing.  

I rate Amazon S3 eight out of 10. It's highly stable, scalable, and cost-effective. I recommend S3 depending on the customer's requirements. It's good if you need to store a large amount of read-only data. It isn't for block storage that you need to edit, but it's good for storing application logs. 

We use Amazon S3 for storing images and documents. We use the solution for all file formats, and Amazon S3 gives us back URLs rendered on our end users' laptops.

My company uses Amazon S3 by default for every single project. I like that you can use it for storing different file formats.

Amazon S3 is also the easiest to use compared to other solutions.

The pricing for Amazon S3 needs improvement.

Another area for improvement is the file size change because it has some limitations that require more time for rendering, especially if you're not merely uploading a file, but reviewing that file, too. It takes some time to receive the file back. In the downloaded format, the file gets compressed.

We have been using Amazon S3 for almost five years on many projects.

The stability of Amazon S3 could be better. Though it's better than Google stability-wise, the rendering needs improvement.

There's no complaint about the scalability of Amazon S3 because it's more of a pay-as-you-go solution. You have to pay when you exhaust your storage, and the cost is a little higher, but there's no issue scaling the solution.

Amazon S3 customer support is good. The support team sometimes waives the technical consultation fee, unlike Microsoft Azure and GCP, which charge you for every consultation, even when you try to solve the issue or DIY it.

Sometimes, Amazon S3 support gets delayed, but Amazon has great engineers who come up with solutions to your issues rather than wasting time.

Amazon S3 has a straightforward setup. It's simple because it's just a plug-in, so it takes little time to set up.

It only takes two hours to set up Amazon S3. You use the Chrome browser on your phone. It's as easy as that, so every developer knows how to do it. You deploy Amazon S3 manually. It's a simple process. You sign up, take a storage folder, and then link the folder to your project. It'll take two hours, and that's it.

The cost of Amazon S3 could be better. The solution needs to be less costly. As the number of data increases, you'll pay more for Amazon S3. It's around $200, which is okay, but my company uses it less often. For a file storage solution, Amazon S3 is expensive, though it would still depend on the project. It's more of the storage charge that needs to be lowered. Usually, Amazon gives you up to five TB free. Suppose Amazon charges you $200, that's fine, but it doesn't feel very justifiable, though there's no question in terms of the abilities of Amazon S3.

There's no extra cost for Amazon S3 except for personal storage.

My company has hundreds of customers using Amazon S3.

I recommend Amazon S3 to others because Amazon has an IT cloud-first approach. It has microservices that could benefit your organization because, development-wise, it's outstanding. It has more reliability and stability. Amazon S3 boosts performance, which saves you time. Though it comes with a premium price, with the time saved, the solution can help grow your business faster. Before you even start using Amazon S3, I recommend seeing the available microservices and looking into what Amazon is trying to improvise and build so that you can use it for new projects and save on time and cost.

My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten, but if the rendering speed, stability, and performance based on file size are better, I could give the solution a higher score.

Our company uses the solution to store data from our analyses. More than 90% of our employees use the solution because our whole system and services are on the cloud. 

The solution and all AWS products have improved our productivity because the infrastructure is always available. You just pull a service and start using it. 

The infrastructure is always available so use can start using services immediately. 

The solution is easy to use for anyone with minimal technical knowledge. 

There are some scalability limitations. 

I have been using the solution for awhile. 

The solution is stable with no issues. 

We know there are some scalability limitations but we have not yet reached them. 

We previously used an on-premises solution. 

The setup is easy but it depends on what you would like to handle. There are different policies and selections but all of it is definitely easy. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is very simple and easy to use. It is pretty much the same as CloudWatch in that regard. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use Amazon S3 primarily as a repository for storing objects such as images and files. It serves as a storage solution where we can efficiently save and manage the data we collect.

Lifecycle policies in Amazon S3 is an important feature because they help manage transitions effectively. We can monitor how frequently objects are accessed and transition them to more cost-effective storage tiers. Additionally, the security architecture, including access control policies, is crucial for protecting our data. These three features—lifecycle management, cost-effective storage transitions, and robust security

From a pricing perspective, there’s still room for improvement, especially for smaller or startup entities that are very cost-conscious. If Amazon could repackage their S3 products to be more affordable and appealing for these smaller users, it could attract more customers, particularly at the lower end of the market. 

You can easily add more space as needed, and you can leverage the available metrics to set up alerts for when utilization reaches certain thresholds. It is highly scalable.

Our internal staff population exceeds one hundred. However, the number of clients accessing the application has surpassed ten thousand and continues to grow.

There are occasional support issues where parts of the application might misbehave, often after scheduled upgrades. When this happens, we need to raise a support ticket. However, the team has been very agile in addressing these issues and quickly resolving them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I have a DevOps team that handles the setup and management tasks. By the time I joined, a lot of the S3 configurations were already in place. For the few instances where we needed to set up S3, it involved just a few clicks. As the Chief Technical Officer, I focus on architecting solutions and providing guidance, while the DevOps team implements them. Overall, the process has been seamless.

For disaster recovery, we're just starting to implement our strategy. Amazon fulfills its part of the shared responsibility model by providing highly available infrastructure, including data redundancy and regional instance deployment. Their infrastructure is designed to support high availability, which aligns with their disaster recovery stipulations. We’re still in the process of testing our own disaster recovery plans, including running full-scale disaster scenarios to ensure we meet our recovery time objectives (MTTR) and recovery point objectives (MTTD). Although we haven't experienced any outages or data loss since starting operations, we are content with Amazon's disaster recovery infrastructure and will continue to build and test our own processes at our own pace.

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

I'm a consultant who provides services for companies of various sizes here in South Africa. Our company is still small, with only about 20 clients. I use S3 for hosting my websites and other storage services. S3 can be used for static and dynamic websites as well as file storage. In terms of dynamic websites, I use S3 in addition to other technologies in a computerless environment. In other words, I don't need a virtual machine to have a dynamic website hosted on Amazon Web Services.

E3's most valuable feature is CloudFront.

You need to do some things to make the files and updates immediately accessible. If you don't know those steps, you will wait forever for your updates to take effect or be seen by the public.

That is the only area where a newcomer might get frustrated with hosting on S3. The files are available immediately when they are first deployed, but it takes some time when they make changes if you don't understand the simple procedure you need to follow for it to happen immediately.

The process needed to show updates immediately is a problem. You have to go somewhere to delete whatever is propagated and restart the propagation somehow. That is the only issue that I think they could fix with hosting on S3 as far as websites are concerned.

I would also like S3 to have the ability to do dynamic websites without the need to do reconfigurations outside of S3. You should be able to switch on dynamic websites in S3, and then it works. I shouldn't need to go elsewhere within Amazon Web Services to get a dynamic website to work.

I've been using S3 for about three years 

It's a cloud service, so our scalability is good. I haven't had any issues. At the same time, I haven't had a situation where a client needed to expand the footprint of their site tremendously. I don't have massive clients like Netflix.

I was never in a position where I needed to request AWS tech support.

I've also used Azure's tool, and S3 is far more stable I haven't seen the same issues on AWS that I'm having on Azure. Amazon CloudFront is way faster. The websites are loading way faster than when you do it on Azure CDN.

Another advantage of S3 over CDN is the fact that I can deploy my websites on Amazon S3 with the root domain and the sub-domain loading the website. When using CDN, you cannot load the website with the root domain.

In the beginning, it wasn't easy. S3 was a little cumbersome when I started using it. With updates, it became easier to set up static websites. However, deploying dynamic websites in S3 is still difficult. You need to take notes on what you're doing so you can do the next dynamic website. 

The deployment is quite fast. You upload files, and that's it.

There a no license fees. E3 is a cloud service, and you pay as you go. Your encryption licenses are free, so you only pay for the storage you're using. It's extremely inexpensive. 

I rate Amazon S3 10 out of 10. S3 is highly cost-effective, so I would definitely recommend it.