Amazon AWS Reviews

I am a software developer and I have experience with several languages and technology stacks. Amazon AWS is one of the technologies that I work with. It's integrated with the solution that we have. It's a continuous integration and deployment pipeline.

The most valuable feature is the availability, as we work in different availability zones.

It has been easy to use, and the tools included are quite friendly.

The reliability and ease of use are the benefits.

At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need. That doesn't mean that the tool is lacking it means that we are trying to be more creative than the tool and the rest of the market. In cases like this, it is we who need to revise our plans.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for one year.

We are pretty happy with the stability.

The only issue that we have encountered is when Amazon had problems with one of their availability zones that impacted half of the world. We found that we were impacted as well, but it wasn't that difficult for us because we already had a solution with multiple zones. We had a minimal outage, as we were swapping from one server to another. It took less than ten minutes for us, so we were pretty pleased.

It's a scalable solution.

We have both options of vertical and horizontal scalability. Everything that we have needed so far has worked well. We have no complaints.

We are in the process of scaling up. We have an IoT solution and if we translate that to endpoints and devices that are monitored, we would have 70,000 devices, and counting, in the field. In terms of clients, there are 300 to 400, each of them with their own users.

We have contacted technical support and because we are just a small client, rather than a partner, it can take 30 minutes to get a solution. We have not had to use it much to this point, so this may not be a fair evaluation.

This solution was already in place when I started with the company. AWS was in-place and they have never switched to anything else.

Our build, or deployment, is dependent on the application, but the pipeline for submitting a new commit and making it a hot deploy would take from five to twenty minutes, depending on the solution.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

I'm not very experienced in the solution yet. I don't have a clear view of all that is offered, but with the experience that I do have, I'm pretty happy with the features and it is difficult for me to find where they are lacking.

Currently, I am switching to Redshift, which is one of their solutions that is already deployed. I can't say that I'm missing anything from their roadmap, so far.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

It has been useful for running virtual services for some of our internal applications. Some of the developers are using it for doing some kind of development work on robotics process automation or RPA.

It is quite easy to provision new virtual services for our use. The procedures are quite straightforward and simple as compared to other competitors, such as Microsoft or Huawei. This is what we are happy about with Amazon AWS.

It is pretty mature in terms of the availability of most of the infrastructure components. If you want to deploy a server on your platform, everything is already there in terms of the operating system, network components, securities, and data encryption. It is also quite scalable and stable.

Our use case is limited to virtual services and RPA development. We are not using it quite heavily, and there are not many issues or problems so far. However, it would be great if it could be integrated with more AI features and proactive monitoring. It could also have more automatic capacity expansion features. For example, when renting out some space, memory, or computing power, the service can have the capacity to expand by itself without being manually handled by us.

I have been using this solution for two to three years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It is easy to expand and unsubscribe. In terms of the number of users, we have ten administrators from the IT side.

We have interacted with them. They are quite responsive to our inquiries.

The initial setup was easy.

It was pretty much done by our in-house developers.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

I would recommend this solution. Amazon AWS cloud is pretty mature in terms of availability for most of the infrastructure components. It is a one-stop shop that gives everybody simple steps to get things done, which is great.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

Auto Scaling and CloudWatch Logs are the most valuable features. With just a few criteria to scale in/out of, you can save the life and time for DevOps.

The CloudWatch Logs feature provides many plugins, so that we are able to manage various types of logs centrally.

In the era, we used private clouds as network virtualization must be controlled by the IT division, server rooms were in the remote branches and DevOps were distributed in various areas. Now, we can use the same API and the same workflow without considering to centralize the logs.

IaaS is sometimes way too complicated to complete one task.

I have used this solution for around eight months.

So far, the VPC is sometimes not that reliable. Therefore, we have to set up a redundant VPC to make sure the connection is always available.

We do not have any scalability issues until now.

I have never used technical support.

Previously, we surveyed OpenStack. However, due to the time, budget and manpower limitations, building a private cloud is not practical in our case.

Managing IaaS was very difficult in the beginning, i.e., tons of jargon to get up and I struggled for months.

Try the Google Cloud Platform (GCP). It is yet another good choice because sometimes, what you need is just a platform and not to build a platform from the infrastructure.

When your division grows to a certain scale and you really need DevOps, then you could move either to a private/public cloud. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and money.

I've used it to create some internal projects for my organization, particularly for designing the infrastructure of those projects.

One feature I find most valuable is the easy deployment by using the channel model for  serverless architecture. Another feature I find valuable is the versatility of the service S3 because it allows you to give permissions to describe the users from their own accounts, from external users, or external accounts.

On the console, they used to have some shortcuts making this solution easier to work with, but now we have been dealing with so many problems on the console, and some of the options are not very useful in my perspective, so they should bring back those options that make things easier to run some of the services.

Most of the time the options are pre-selected, or you have to go with the default settings, but from my perspective, there are some services which are now more complicated to use than before.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the future is more integration with public repositories, though some use their own repositories for security purposes, but I think it'll be easier to deploy services through public repositories.

I've been using this solution for almost four years now.

This solution is stable. I've been using it for a long time and have only seen an outage in one of the regions. It's a good solution.

The scalability of this solution is good.

The technical support of AWS is very good. When I need something, they reach out to me fast.

The initial setup was straightforward. The complexity of the setup will depend on the number of services e.g. it's something that involves a lot of services, it could get complex, but for a complex setup, you could use things like transformation or Terraform because they will enable you to use infrastructure as a code to make it easier. There's a lot of things to configure.

Licensing of this solution is paid on a yearly basis.

I evaluated Microsoft Azure.

This was deployed on the cloud. I don't remember which version because I didn't deploy it. I was not the person running the project of implementing AWS, but I know the client used it, but I don't know which version.

It's not so difficult to use because there's a lot of tutorials.

I'm not completely sure about the number of AWS users in our organization. We have a partnership with them so we have some accounts, but we don't completely have our load on AWS. We are mostly on Azure. Our main server is on Azure. On AWS, we mostly have some internal projects and services, but most of the main load is on Azure.

We have a small workload on AWS. Sometimes we use it to deploy some of our best projects. We use it on some internal projects. It's a random thing so it could be 1,000 users or 50 users. I'll say approximately 200 to 500 users.

We don't require too many people for deploying this solution because our projects are proof of concepts. Up to ten people from different departments would be needed for deployment if it's a business requirement e.g. people from Approvals and Projects, etc.

As for increasing AWS usage, the organization sometimes thinks of moving some of the load to AWS because of good pricing, because currently, our main streams are on Azure, but it's not a sure thing.

I'm unsure if there's any additional cost aside from the need to pay the license annually because I don't directly manage it.

My advice to organizations looking into implementing AWS, especially if they're going to use it on a big scale, is to take advantage of AWS' organization model to make integration with their policies easier. It will also make administration easier for the different accounts, departments, and structure of the organizations thinking of moving to AWS.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using the solution for our core applications and our core infrastructure.

The product offers a lot of functionality. 

Our vendor who provides us a specific core application uses AWS and it's just simple for us if we use it too. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has been issue-free. It's very stable and the performance is good.

The solution can get to be a little expensive. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now. 

Technical support is good. We have had no issues with them. We are satisfied with their service.

We also use Microsoft Azure. 

The initial implementation process is pretty simple and easy. It's not complex or overly difficult. A company shouldn't have any issues with the deployment process. 

The costs could always be lowered.

How often we pay can vary, depending on the exact service. We pay, for example, both yearly and monthly.

As a cloud-based solution, we are using the latest version all the time. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We are a product cocktail service company, and we deliver identity-based solutions that customers can subscribe to. The back-end infrastructure is hosted in AWS.

It helps us by saving money. Having a physical server on our premises is, of course, quite expensive as compared to building an EC2 instance in the cloud.

We use AWS in-built services like EC2, ECS, Lambda services, CloudTrail, CloudWatch, etc. AWS is a very big platform that provides a lot of services.

The main reason why we use EC2 is because we are not dependent on maintaining the hardware inside our premises. Also, we have full control over the infrastructure, and we can modify it as per our own requirements.

It is stable and scalable as well.

Installation is quite easy.

Monitoring still needs to be improved.

Better support for Windows Operating Systems would be appreciated. It is good for Linux but needs to improve for Windows.

I've been dealing with Amazon AWS for more than four years now.

We are experiencing 99.9% uptime already, so we have had no issues with stability.

It is scalable. We have configured our Auto Scaling options there, which enables us to install as the requirements increase. It auto scales the server.

Technical support is okay. I will not rate it too high, but I think it might be because it is part of a basic plan. We do not have the enterprise support plan.

You don't require much technical expertise to have an instance, so the initial setup is quite easy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Amazon AWS at nine.

We provide services to clients using Amazon AWS and I've also used it for our own applications.

AWS aligns very well with agile and DevOps practices, as well as and cloud-native principles like infrastructure as code. In short, it helps me deliver my product faster to market.

There are a lot of features that I really like including ease of deployment, ease of build and release, and also that it is heavily focused on a PaaS or SaaS model. All I have to worry about is my application and not about the infrastructure.

One of the problems that I have seen is that some of the products are not as mature as others. For example, their API Gateway is not as mature as Kong, and their version control system is not at mature as GitHub. It's the same thing with their databases like DynamoDB, which is not as mature as MongoDB. Once we have equality in products between on-premises and cloud, this system will be a very good proposition.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for about five years.

As the majority of products on AWS are PaaS or SaaS offerings, scalability is not a big concern. For some of the services, you have to give them notice if you want to scale them beyond certain limits.

I have been in contact with technical support and they are quite good at responding.

The initial setup is not complex. In fact, I would say that it is relatively easy.

The time required for deployment depends on which products are selected. Some take minutes, whereas others can take hours.

My advice for anybody who is considering AWS is to try exploring and use it. I think that it will save you a lot of time.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.