Amazon S3 Reviews

We are using Amazon S3 mostly for block storage.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are its storage capabilities, security, and integration.

Amazon S3 could improve by having more frequent updates.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately six years.

The solution is stable.

Amazon S3 is a highly scalable solution.

We have two clients using the solution.

The support from Amazon S3 is excellent. 

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

Positive

The setup of Amazon S3 was straightforward. The implementation process is quick.

We used an integrator for the deployment of the solution.

There is a license needed to use this solution and it is reasonably priced.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for data blocking and analysis. It is also used as a storage solution, gene access and maintaining access.

The most valuable features are VNet, virtual machines, and Elastic Kubernetes Service.

We have been using this solution for eight years and are using the latest version. It can be deployed anywhere. We can use a console and data from and on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution because it is low latency. We have several users and plan to increase usage in the future.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used a storage account in Azure and Data Lake.

The initial setup was straightforward. We use Terraform for deployment, and we only need one person for deployment.

We have seen a return on investment because we do not pay overhead costs.

It is expensive for storing, but it is way cheaper for retrieval.

We evaluated block storage.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon S3 for data extraction because a few of the source information for our organization requires us to rely on it for any data point input.

Because it was only mined for the purpose of data extraction.

I think it is reasonably good.

It's difficult to say because I've only been working with it for six months.

The installation could be more straightforward for inexperienced users.

I have been using Amazon S3 for six months.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

We were limited to two people because pricing is a consideration.

I'm not sure, because as a team, we use it, but I'm not sure how many there should be in the company.

We have four on our team.

We have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup is moderate. It's neither easy nor difficult. It is reasonable. Because it depends on the individual, I suppose, but my usage is moderate.

I am not sure about the pricing. I have seen the pricing on AWS, but I believe it's a discount price for organizations. I wouldn't know because that is something confidential between the company and AWS.

My advice is to use it. The storage factor and data extraction are faster because we can use Redshift for extraction. It has very low latency.

I would rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten because we are on the cloud, and again, from an organizational standpoint, it is beneficial even for data maintenance

I have used Amazon for my personal projects. I was using it for my personal things and for test purposes. I didn't use any use case. I just put some data in and read it back again.

Overall, it's a good solution.

The stability is very good.

It's an easy solution to set up.

Maybe it could be a bit cheaper. There are many people using it or willing to use it, and the data size is increasing. It is reasonable at the beginning, however, then it is starting to get a bit expensive as the data size is increasing incredibly. It is getting more expensive.

I've been using the solution for maybe a few months just to understand the product how it works.

The product is stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I've never contacted technical support and have never dealt with them. Therefore, I cannot speak to helpful or responsive they would be if a person needed help.

I did not previously use a different solution. I did not use a cloud before. 

We have found the product easy to set up. It's simple. it's not too complex. 

It took about one week to set everything up.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of outside help from integrators or consultants. 

The solution started off reasonably priced, however, it is getting more and more expensive. 

It's a free service for one year.

I'm an end-user.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with its capabilities. 

Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

The main aspect we like is that it's been easy to use.

The solution scales well.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has been helpful.

The pricing and licensing are pretty complex. It needs to be simplified. 

They have no development environment. That means that even during the development time, we are paying.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

It would be helpful if there were more templates available. 

Our application is still new. We are just in development. Our testing environment is on Amazon S3. Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

We've used it maybe for about a year.

The solution is stable. Up until this point, we haven't had any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product can scale well. It's very easy to do.

We have around 6,000 people using the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If there are some problems, we can contact them directly.

Most problems are on our side as there are some configurations and other things we did wrong. We've noted our issues and have fixed them going forward. However, it's on us to fix them, not Amazon.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. That said, my company is an IT company and therefore it's not hard for us. If there are other people that maybe aren't in IT, if they use the Amazon service, it could be complex to them.

In terms of maintenance, sometimes if there is some problem, right now we have only three engineers. It's a little bit hard to maintain it with just that small amount. That's why we're hiring some professional companies for that.

We pay for the solution on a monthly basis. We use a basic license and any additional fees based on usage. 

It's complete licensing. It's not simple at all. 

We did look at an option from Google, however, there were some restrictions and we decided against using them.

I'd advise new users to read the documentation before deciding on using the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.

We use this solution to store the historical data of the customer. Additionally, we are creating JSON format data while running our application and we are pushing this JSON format data to the Amazon S3.

This solution is good at storing historical data and we were using it for other purposes.

When we need to find the queries there is no user interface, it is the only textual format that is bulky. If we need some data we will use Athena for queries and we will get results. When comparing this solution to others, such as DataDog, they provide a wonderful UI, and user-friendly dashboards, and many other features that this solution is lacking.

We have found that the query takes too much time to process and it is quite difficult to receive the data.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution scalable.

The initial setup was quite complex. We needed to create some endpoints but with a little effort everything turned out alright. Additionally, we use Kafka queues and we send them to the S3 bucket. With the help of shell scripts, we run one script and we receive the data from Kafka queue, topic by topic, and we send the data to the S3 bucket.

The cost of storage is cheap. However, the cost to have a better interface can get expensive. We are using Athena for this purpose and if we did some heavy queries the cost will start adding up. When the Athena query is running, it will scan the bucket and they charge for how many GBs we are going to scan. The function of scanning has a lot of costs attached to it, this is a negative point.

I have evaluated Datadog and Kibana and we are planning on moving away from Amazon S3 and S3 Athena because the other solutions provide the latest technology.

We should not use this solution for the purpose of the logs. We realized if we need to track the logs and a few other things we should use a good log platform which would have been better.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future but only for a specific set of purposes. We are moving away from S3 to a different solution, such as Datadog or Elasticsearch because 80% of the usage is only for storage purposes. We will keep on doing the same thing in the future. Only 20% of our usage we are planning to move from S3 to a log platform.

I would advise others if this solution fits the use case or expected usage for the end-user then I would recommend it. If they can afford everything that is involved, such as storage and usage fees, then it would be a good choice. They have to consider how frequently they want to access the data from the storage, how many heavy queries they want to run, and are they going to manipulate the data or retrieve the data. They should consider all these scenarios before they make the decision to implement the solution.

I rate Amazon S3an eight out of ten.

We use it for static website hosting, storing data, and second data of some of the websites. We can then easily sync the data whenever we have the need to do so.

Some of our websites are 2 or 4 pages and have static content. We can simply host it by creating a bucket, putting the content of the website there, and making it available to the public with the Make Public feature.

Amazon S3 has multiple types of data detection. You can store data on a monthly basis, yearly basis, and long term basis. You can choose the Glacier feature, create a life cycle policy, and store it. This is one of the best features this solution has.

It is stable and scalable, and the installation is very straightforward as well.

The only pain point is migrating the life cycle policy because if someone is a newbie, they cannot easily create the life cycle policy. This is because there are multiple, additional ways. If I want to store data for one month, they have the option to Glacier over it. With Glacier, you have addition policies for one year or four years. The option will not be there. So you would need to use a UI process over it.

I've been using it for almost the last four years.

I think the stability of Amazon S3 is good.

It is scalable. We currently have 40 plus users.

Amazon Protect Support has been been quite responsive.

The initial setup was completely straightforward.

The licensing is pay as you go, and I'm happy with the pricing.

We didn't evaluate other options because there's no such available feature in the market at present that can compare all the things in a bucket, like S3.

If you are a small scale enterprise that wants to host websites or data, you should go for it and use Amazon S3. 

I would rate Amazon S3 at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We have deployed Amazon S3 in two places, in Ireland and Northern Ireland. These act as storage for all the data, which is there. We have up to three servers there, one of these is an SQL server and one is Windows.

Feature-wise, Amazon S3 is the cheapest and it's reliable.

Overall, I don't think there's anything that needs to be improved.

The console could be improved - it's not very user-friendly for non-technical guys and the cost has to improve. It does not give us a clear picture of the total cost.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate it an 8.

We are using Amazon S3 for three years now.

It's very stable, you just have to look at cloud security more deeply because otherwise everything gets opened on the cloud.

Amazon S3 is easy to scale - scaling just comes with a cost.

Only the core IT Admin team and I are using this solution. The users do not have access to it.

Amazon technical support is good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. If you don't know how Amazon works, it takes time to set up. Once it is set up then it is straightforward.

We used integrators to deploy as Amazon recommended that at the time in India. They recommended a partner or consultant.

Amazon deployment works beautifully.

If you know what your inside view will look like, you can cut down on your cost. 

Look at cloud security when you first configure the architecture.