Amazon S3 Reviews

We use Amazon S3 for storing documents and hosting website content.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the performance and hibernation data options. Additionally, there is a feature that provides faster website access that is helpful.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately two years.

My advice to others is for them to read a lot of articles on the internet as much as possible. There is a lot of information available on the internet.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We have 10 people using the solution in my organization.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. We have not used a large amount of data to fully test the capabilities of the scalability. However, it worked well for our needs.

We have used the support from Amazon S3. The support is expensive and could be reduced.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward. However, understanding the policies for the first time can take some time to figure out.

The time it takes for the deployment of the solution depends on many factors. The process can be quick.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house. There are a lot of articles and documentation available for implementation.

The cost of Amazon S3 is low. For R & D purposes there is a free option available. There is a license needed to use the solution.

I have been satisfied with the storage overall price.

Amazon S3 is 99.99 percent stable. We have never had an issue.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We are using the solution to host our website and manage the database.

We have an online portal, and we are providing services to customers. We need to maintain an elastic database storage, along with security features. The solution’s functionality and accessibility are valuable to us. It's geared towards users. It makes things simple. The product is easy to use.

The product should enable users to create their own shortcuts. It should allow more customization. Users should be able to place their shortcuts on the dashboard. It will make things easier.

I have been using the solution for a year.

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

The product is scalable. We have over 50 users online at any given point. We can increase it as we need.

The setup is straightforward. We have a team of developers. They are very happy with the tool. The deployment did not take much effort. The product is cloud-based. We have six developers and engineers in our technical team.

Everything is housed in one place, so it is all easily accessible. The scalability is good. We have an assurance of data integrity. It is critical.

The pricing can be improved.

We are also using Azure.

For disaster recovery, there's a backup going on in AWS. At the same time, we take our own local backup. It is a daily process. People who want to use the solution must explore the tool and look at the training videos. It is quite straightforward.

We have a subscription model with our customers. They pay it yearly. There are no additional costs associated with the product. We had a problem with storage when we were working with on-premise servers. The hard disks were failing because of the volume of the data. They were regularly failing every three to four months. There was a cost associated with it. It impacted our project.

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

We use the solution to put our static web pages on the backend servers when we use Cloudfront if a transformation is required. When a request reaches Cloudfront, we have to mask some information in the response by transporting it.

The solution masks or transforms the request so the backend can understand them. For example, We have a proxy server in between the NGINX engine, and when a request hits the NGINX engine, it has a different format. The NGINX engine converts and secures the information before hitting the Cloudfront. We use the Lambda function which is a Python program so the code body stays in the Amazon S3 bucket and when a response is returned from the backend server we can mask some of the information, keeping only the required information for the end response.

I also use Amazon S3 for batch processing. Two gigabytes is a lot of data, especially if we are adding or updating information. If we have a Java application, it can take a long time to process two gigabytes of data. I split the data into multiple 50 or 30-MB files to make it easier to process.  I created a manifest file that specified which rows belonged to which files. Then I used the solutions batch processing with Lambda to create a pipeline that performs batch operations.

I use the solution for life cycle management. The information goes from the standard storage to the infrequent, and after 30 days it is moved to the glacier.

Amazon S3 provides us with a ready-made server. We have the option to secure our case from public access, We can give access to the targeted audiences only with the signed page and signed requests. A signed request is also provided to the target audience so that they can use the link for requesting the object to be seen by the Amazon S3 bucket. We have a cloud formation template that we restored into Amazon S3 and during the launch of the AWS services, we only needed to execute the command from the Amazon S3 bucket. With the solution, we can simply provide our resources and files to Amazon for the code references using Lambda functions instead of keeping tiny scripts in the Amazon S3 bucket to restore codes.

The integration with Cloudfront helps in fetching the static phase and default phases in case our actual service is down. Instead of our customers receiving a response that something is happening in the background and trying the site later, we can redirect our page from one page to another, using the Amazon S3 bucket links in Cloudfront.

I would like a batch downloading option added to the AWS console. If we have a bucket in Amazon S3 and for example, we have 50 files that we want to download locally on our system, we need to download them one by one. We can batch-download the files with the command, but from the AWS console, we cannot select all the files and download them into a folder. 

An option to delete multiple files at one time would be a nice feature to be added to the AWS console because we currently have to specify the individual file names. For example, if five files are present, and we want to delete them, then each file name has to be entered separately.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is extremely stable. I give the stability ten out of ten.

The solution is scaled automatically because it is cloud-based. Whatever our demand is the solution has no limitations or restrictions. 

I give scalability ten out of ten.

We have only had the need for technical support three times using the solution and they were not able to resolve two of the issues because they were not supported by them. In most cases, we are able to resolve the issues using the information found on forums.

Neutral

Previously, we used our local hard disc and the local remote service. We were facing a lot of problems that cloud solutions have solved, like availability, and down servers or IP not reachable. 

The initial setup is straightforward. At the time of our deployment, we had one issue with our targeted audience not being able to access specific pages even after we followed the guidelines and video tutorials from AWS. This was three years ago and has probably been addressed. 

The deployment only takes a few minutes depending on the context. We just run our command from either the CLI or the AWS console and the smart configuration is complete.

Most of the time we work with our customers and they provide us with their network settings and all the AWS services that will be hosted in their network. Once a customer has created their accounts, and has applied their security and network settings, they provide us with the working space and using that information, we can deploy Amazon S3 to their network.

There is a 70 percent return on investment when transferring from external storage to Amazon S3.

The cost is based on the amount of storage required and if we exceed the data transfer rate across regions.

If we use an external encryption key and not the one included by AWS, the data transfer between the key server and our Amazon S3 server will incur a charge.

I give the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is a web service that is hosted on the cloud only. Even if we tried to deploy it on-premise, we couldn't because AWS has the outpost service. Outposts are a way to create an AWS cloud environment locally, but some services are not available. S3 is a regional service and has to be serverless. 

Amazon S3 doesn't require any maintenance except perhaps one or two people for identity access management and a way to validate users.

All of our AWS developers use Amazon S3 including our migration people who have to take a backup using the solution for all the projects.

Amazon S3 is the perfect service for all applications for personal use. Anyone can use this solution regardless of their location with an AWS user account. The solution offers good web service and is perfect for anyone that wants to set up a minimal startup static web page for information purposes easily.

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 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.

My use case for Amazon S3 is storage, particularly for unstructured data.

What I found most valuable in Amazon S3 is its versioning feature.

I also like that you can create pre-signed URLs on the solution.

The query size in Amazon S3 has room for improvement because it's limited. Querying on Amazon S3 is also expensive with Amazon Athena, so that's another area for improvement in the solution.

I have two years of experience with Amazon S3. I've been using the solution continuously.

Regarding stability, I'm rating Amazon S3 eight out of ten.

My rating for Amazon S3 scalability is eight out of ten.

I didn't encounter any issues with Amazon S3, so I have yet to contact the technical support team.

Setting up Amazon S3 was very straightforward.

The ROI from Amazon S3 is good.

The pricing for Amazon S3 is reasonable, so price-wise, it's a seven out of ten.

In my company, one person deployed Amazon S3. That person is also in charge of maintenance.

There's a possibility of increasing Amazon S3 usage in the future. Still, that depends on how much GB my company uses. It depends on the use cases.

I advise anyone planning to implement Amazon S3 to stick to the basics and follow the documentation to learn how to set it up.

My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten because it's a very good solution.

Our company uses the solution for backups, data pumps, files, and logs. Our projects connect to the solution rather than individual users connecting to it. 

The solution is within the Amazon architecture so it easily connects with the cloud, hardware, or other services to move data. We do not need to connect to direct services to download data. 

The solution requires you to buy and use Amazon services. 

The solution could be more auto functional. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The stability is good so I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. It is easy to add gigabytes or more users and is more a question of budget. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup is very easy. Every junior Dev Ops can set up the solution and use data storage. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

There is no deployment because it is a data storage solution. 

The solution is very inexpensive at 50 cents per gigabyte, per month. 

Some packages or discounts are available. Big companies can use the solution for free. 

You can use the solution for projects that are within the Amazon architecture. 

You cannot use the solution if you have your own services or data centers because it is dependent on the Amazon architecture. 

If you have a service such as Azure in Amazon, then you can use the stream but not the solution directly. 

The solution is great for data and cloud storage. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten.