Amazon S3 Reviews

We use Amazon s3 to store objects like data in my environment.

In one of my previous environments, I was brought in to help with the challenges they were facing resulting from a data breach in the S3 bucket. What I noticed in that environment was that every user had full access into their S3 bucket, and accidentally deleted data without a trace.

They did not know how some of their data was missing. One of the first services I suggested was enforcing access control by applying IM best practices, such as granting list privilege permission to our users to avoid overpowering them. I created a single group and then applied specific permissions to that group.

All users added to that group were able to inherit the same permission and privileges. Versioning was enabled which keeps multiple variant of objects in the same bucket and also safeguards against accidental deletions. I also enabled multi-factor authentication which prevented accidental bug deletion by requiring the user who initiate the delete action to prove physical possession of an MFA device with an MFA code. 

The versioning of this solution for accidental deletion has been most valuable. 

You need to fully understand the solution's best practices to get the most out of its security features. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We have seen a return on investment with S3.

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten. Pricing depends on a particular class where you want save your objects. There are different classes when it comes to storage in S3.

I would advise others that this is a scalable solution that offers comprehensive security. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

We use this solution for storing the input-output of our processing. We are customers of Amazon. 

Version control is great, it means we can store incremental data, and get high availability and fault tolerance. If we accidentally delete something we can recover it by using S3. It also enables the option of reverting to old files. 

The read drive speed is not as fast as it should be. If we want to access data, we should be able to do it quickly. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is scalable, there are no limitations on storage. There are around 10,000 users in the company. 

Amazon provides good documentation for this solution so we've never contacted technical support. 

The initial setup is easy. It just requires logging in to AWS, and it's available.

This is a pay-as-you-use, on-demand service. It's not very expensive. 

We went with S3 because of its high availability, fault tolerance and scalability. Those are the three main reasons we chose it. 

We are very flexible with our use cases and it fits most clients.

The most valuable feature is the automated replication of the data. You can store things and they automatically replicate somewhere else. So if you have an issue, you have a backup, and that is very good. You can set up how often you want it backed up, and I find that extremely useful.

I would like to see the API for beginners improved because it is hard to understand. It is based on the idea of a container when most programmers just understand directories and subdirectories. For a beginner, the API is a bit confusing.

I have been working with Amazon S3 for the past four years

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is definitely present from hundreds to thousands depending on the client.

I have used other solutions in the past, but none of them are as scalable.

The initial setup If you have the experience is fairly simple. If you do not, then it is fairly complex.

I know it is very inexpensive compared to other solutions.

I would basically recommend that individuals just follow the guidelines AWS as they are very good. I would rate Amazon S3 an eight on a scale of one to ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for storage.

The most valuable feature of the solution is auto-scaling.

I would like to see an easier setup that doesn't require as much training.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is stable.

The solution auto-scales so it is easily scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward as long as you are familiar with the cloud services.

The cost varies based on the type of subscription you chose.

Currently, I use the solution for my phishing server and I pay $15 per month.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated DigitalOcean.

I rate the solution nine out of ten.

I suggest if you are interested in using the solution you should also use the other services offered by Amazon such as AWS, and EC2 so you have access to everything in one place.

Auto-scaling is very costly if you don't manage to control it. You need to have good training and understanding of the solution.

Our company uses the solution for deep CI backups. We have thousands of customers who use the solution and access our application. 

The solution is good and includes all the features we expect. 

The solution's pricing should be modified to automatically expand storage based on prior usage. For example, our monthly usage is very low so our storage allotment should be increased by 200%.

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is good so I rate it them a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I did not previously use another solution. 

The setup is very easy. 

The pricing depends on your region and is reasonable. For example, the price per gigabyte is .0025 in the South Pacific and .0023 in Europe.  

We use the solution and EC2 with similar frequency depending on use case. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten. 

Our company has 30 staff members who use the solution for data storage. 

Uploads are secure and occur instantly.

The solution provides good data movement from Snowball to the S3 bucket. 

It is difficult to retrieve files in an emergency because the public cloud has data limits for immediate downloads so they often take twelve hours. We need better, immediate control of our content. 

The cloud and on-premises solutions should sync all data. 

Infrastructure services could be improved to provide free education related to the solution's features. For example, developers who do not have experience building games could learn how to do so with free support. 

I have been using the solution for nine years. 

The solution is very stable and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable and there are no limits on data uploads. We upload four TB of data a day. 

Technical support can be challenging because we have to work through account managers. For urgent situations, our tech team contacts support to get assistance. 

I rate support a four out of ten. 

Neutral

The initial setup and creating buckets are very simple. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

Not many products in the market beat the solution in terms of quality or price. 

The solution charges for data downloads. 

We currently use the public cloud but want to use a private cloud because there are speed issues when retrieving files in an emergency. For example, retrieving emergency video files might take twelve hours because the cloud will not allow immediate downloads. A private cloud will allow us to retrieve files immediately without a data limit. 

We are in talks with GreenLake, Atlassian, and Dell to find the best solution that optimizes our cost. There is a retrieval cost associated with the public cloud so we want to optimize these costs and switch to a private cloud. 

The solution offers great quality and price. We are closely evaluating the cost of other solutions to determine if it is worth it to move from a solution that works well for us. 

Cost is a primary concern because we manage three petabits of data. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Currently, I am a cloud solution architect. I consult with developers and set up the architecture needed to deploy a solution. If a solution needs to be deployed within AWS, we sit down with the client and discuss the services that are most appropriate for that solution and design the architecture, which is given to the review board for approval. The AWS services we consume are dependent on the solution. Users from various departments will use the solution, depending on what's being deployed there. 

We have cold storage here, and I think that's useful. When it comes to commercialization, it's cheaper to put data that you won't be using into the data storage. You only use a little bit of the data needed each day for your transition, so you pay less. 

There could be more flexibility in configuration to allow more ways to connect to outside the PPC.

I started using S3 at my previous company, so I have been using it for five years. 

S3 is very stable.

Amazon S3 is highly scalable.

I rate AWS support 10 out of 10. 

Positive

Setting up S3 is straightforward.  At first, it was difficult because I didn't know how to use the solution. Now it takes less than five minutes to deploy S3. 

A solution architect needs to create a plan for what needs to be deployed, and the developer will deploy the solution. Most of the engagement happens before the deployment when the architect and the developer come to an agreement about the approach. One person procures the services, and others will test them and put them into the live environment.

We deployed the solution with the help of a consultant, who helped us implement some of the heavier stuff in the data lake. However, we did the basic stuff in-house because we've got the VPC to do it ourselves. 

The licensing cost is not bad. However, you need an understanding of the solution you're deploying and the services running. You will save money by shutting down some of the services when they're not in use.

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10. It's an excellent product. I'm also working with it for my personal use. I'm putting my documents and pictures into the S3 bucket.

It is mainly for transferring the files we are using from AWS, where we have to transfer the files from AWS to a non-cloud environment.

The security is the most useful aspect of the product.

We've had no issues with stability.

It can scale well. 

You do need to get training on the setup process. It's not straightforward. 

I've been using the solution for four years now 

The solution is stable and reliable. the performance has been good. It's been problem-free. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It can scale well.

We have about 70 people using the product currently.

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

I don't know much about technical support. I don't deal with that aspect. We have a separate team that handles any issues. 

The initial setup isn't easy. We require training to get up to speed. 

I'm not the person that actually handled the deployment.

I don't have any insights into the exact price of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with its capabilities in general. 

It is not for everybody. Potential users can also evaluate Azure as well as AWS, as both are equally good. If you really need a cloud solution, then obviously there are many in the market. The cost is a top pain factor nowadays.

We predominantly use this solution for our data storage, primarily making DB backups. I'm a lead data engineer.

The product is easy to use, very intuitive, fast and quite flexible. We can manage access and controls using Amazon policies so it's very secure and provides secure implementation methods. All those features help our day-to-day processes and functionalities. 

File versioning could be improved and I'd like to see some additional security features.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We haven't had any downtime in the years we've been using this product. We also have disaster recovery setups but haven't needed them.

Scalability is pretty good, we have over 100 plus users, and inherently all our applications interact with S3. We use it heavily, it's our main storage medium.

The tech support is very good. We had some help with the configuration and some of our niche use cases and more complex aspects of the implementation. Apart from that, we've rarely needed any S3 support because the UI and the functionality itself are straightforward so you don't need to go beyond the standard documentation provided.

We're a small organization and previously had an on-prem solution that was more expensive for us with a lot of overheads. It didn't make sense to continue using it. 

It's a simple deployment once you get the hang of it. We had two people managing the deployment. You can develop your own templates for repeated actions and automate repeat jobs. It's not complex. We're currently using more than 200 terabytes. We're using three different modes so we're using the solution extensively.

We were able to reduce our licensing costs by exploring the different storage classes and different lifecycle management policies. It's a very good tool to control your costs and automate a few of the routine tasks which typically take significant manual effort when you need to write ad-hoc jobs. The storage is quite cheap although there are some processes that bump up the cost. 

We are making custom applications to the cloud.

We are service providers.

In terms of use cases, where a company wants to deploy their applications instead of building their servers on the premise, on the company premise. They can just, instead of buying servers and setting up networks and everything, buy space online on the AWS cloud. That way, you don't have to buy an expensive server. You already have servers online. You deploy your application. That's the main use case we are handling now. For example, if you have an in-house ERP, you want to move everything to the cloud. We migrate clients, for example. from on-premise to the cloud. If you have heavy tasks, there are computations that require heavy, powerful machines.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It’s easy to set up.

Technical support is excellent.

Amazon, especially its cloud, is the best on the market.

It can lower costs as you won’t need physical hardware on-site.

Regarding S3, S2, and E2, all I'd recommend is for pricing to be lower since we can easily overuse them. For example, if a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.

We’ve used the solution for a while.

AWS is very, very stable. It's actually the most stable cloud service for S3, for all the services provided on the cloud. They're very stable. However, compared to others, they are costly.

We started this year, so we haven't gone much into it. We became partners this year. Right now, we only have one client that we have recently started locally in Kenya.

The tech support is good. It's perfect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. AWS is the easiest to set up. It's the best actually among the cloud providers. It’s number one compared to Google Cloud, Oracle, or Microsoft Azure.

It took a few hours to set up.

We are integrators. We are able to handle the setup ourselves.

Their prices are higher than say Microsoft Azure or Google. So AWS is very easy to use yet expensive.

Licensing is pay as you go. The more resources you use, the more you pay, however, they seem to be more costly than competitors.

We have two options for the cloud. We can choose Oracle Cloud or AWS. We take what is suitable depending on the plan and the cost implications.

We became AWS partners this year.

I’d recommend this and any other AWS product to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.