Amazon AWS Reviews

The introduction of the ITD pipeline makes the development and operation cycle easier for the organization.

The solution also helps organizations to move applications to a containerized platform.

Instead of using some third-party solutions, Amazon should include them as part of its offering.

Currently, we are using some third-party services for various purposes. Amazon can acquire those open-source products and provide them with managed services.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about six years.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is always high, and the customer can seamlessly scale up the solution. I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is very easy. Amazon AWS is the easiest cloud platform to learn and deal with compared to any other provider.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten for ease of initial setup.

Any service built on AWS is very easy and quick to deploy and does not take much time. Within 10 to 15 minutes, you can bring a server up and launch a website.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

Amazon AWS was deployed on the cloud in my organization.

Overall, I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We deploy our core application and our integrations platform on AWS EC2 instances. Both applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale with how often and how intensely customers use the platform. 

We need a secure cloud environment to support our new self-service API, allowing customers to hit our services from outside an outside service. AWS provides the security, scalability, and flexibility to make this happen.

We also store large customer files on AWS S3 Buckets.

Without AWS, our organization simply would not exist. Our entire tech stack is served on AWS. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save money. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save time and utilize technical resources in other ways. Other ways include building out the front end of our application as well as the back end of our application. Without AWS, we would have to hire network/server engineers, which would take away from our overall speed of growth.

We have found the Elastic Cloud Compute service (EC2) as well as the simple storage solution (S3) to be the most valuable aspects of the solution.

We deploy our core application and our integration platform on AWS EC2 instances. These applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale up and down dynamically. They also need to be secure to prevent unwanted bad actors from using our AWS compute instances for malicious activity.

Finally, we find the S3 buckets to be quite valuable. S3 allows us to securely store large customer files without fear of them being compromised, changed, lost, or corrupted.

I am not an expert in AWS, nor do I work in the dev-ops department, so I might not be the best person to ask this question. It could be made cheaper. I know we spend a lot of money each month on AWS.

We have been using AWS since the company was founded in 2017 - about five years.

We have applications that are running on the PaaS platforms.

In the healthcare environment, we use Amazon AWS to run healthcare and hospitalization applications.

The end-user is largely unaware of how the backend works, so some of the services are provided by Amazon. So, where we are, some of the applications have been running since the beginning, and we have been using them. And some of the services are required by the packages we are running, so they use Amazon PaaS as a service.

In general, Amazon's performance is good.

When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a few years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution, it is far more stable than some others.

Amazon AWS is scalable, depending on the platforms and services that are used.

In our company, we have 50,000 employees who use this solution.

We intend to increase our users based on how the new releases go, and if the economics work out better than Google and Microsoft, we will definitely look to Amazon because Amazon can be extremely competitive at times.

It should be faster. Unlike Google's and Microsoft's support, Amazon's support should be faster.

We have used other PaaS clouds previously.

The hospitals were available on Amazon. We have certain hospitals that were part of the group when it first started, but there are a lot of hospitals that are in the process of being acquired. Once the setup is acquired, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for them to bring it through one enterprise architecture. Now, it is not necessary to have services from only one cloud service provider; instead, we can have services from multiple providers, and we are working to integrate the multi-cloud.

Essentially, you must design and optimize the architecture. It is not the most straightforward process to install. You must first design your architecture and then optimize it in relation to the services.

Earlier I used to work there, and we had a real skill shortage because we needed people who could understand and work in the cloud. When we developed centers of excellence and core competencies, people were required to work across multiple platforms, which is a challenge that we are currently working on. As a result, the real challenge now is for a team to have a multi-cloud. Now, if we can develop this talent organically, that will be fantastic. We'll spread out the support team we require. Another initiative that is being worked on is automation, automating scripts, and new technologies, which are assisting us greatly with serverless and cloud computing.

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

Yes, I would recommend this solution. If we compare the three, I would rank Google first, Microsoft second, Amazon third, and the rest would follow.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

This is a service solution for architecture. It's a cloud solution basically for anything you need. 

I'm happy with the solution.

It's very easy to use. 

The stability and performance are great.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support has been great.

I'd like the solution to be more plug-and-play.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been a while.  

The stability is very good. The performance is great and it's quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

AWS scales well. It's not a problem to expand it. 

We have 100 users using the solution at this time. They are end-users and clients. 

Our plan right now is to increase usage in the future.

I've used technical support in the past. I don't have any complaints about their services. They are quite good overall.

We did use a different solution, however, the company decided to move to AWS.

There's no installation involved. It's a very straightforward product.

As there is no installation process, you don't need a technical team and you don't have to do any maintenance. 

There is a license fee that you need to pay. There are flexible payment options. For example, you can pay monthly if you want to.

I do recommendations for the development of cloud solutions. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of AWS is that you can scale it up and down as you need. The environment is a rich playground, and if you tried to do the same things on-premises that you do on AWS, it would be a lot more challenging to execute. You can open up a virtual machine on AWS, run some experiments, and be done with it. It's much easier than buying new servers, provisioning them, etc. 

Most of the companies that I've worked for deal with AWS. 

I don't know how many servers they say they have, but AWS is a highly reliable platform. I'm sure they've had outages because it's all over the news when they do, but it's stable overall.

Cloud solutions like AWS are supposed to have near-infinite scalable. That's the point. You can just keep going and make them as big or small as you need. 

AWS is like all the other cloud providers. They're all like vacuum salesmen, where they come in, and they say, "Do you want to buy this hose or this vacuum?" And you're like, "Yeah, it's not that expensive. It's a hose." And then they say, "How about these extra bags?" And you're like, "Okay. I'll buy the bags. It's not that much." Then, at the end of the day, you've bought an entire vacuum store's worth of stuff. You don't know upfront what it will cost, but they have cost calculators and other things like that.

You'll probably experience some sticker shock with AWS. You attempt to understand the cost, but you don't realize what you're paying until you get your first bill. I don't know if Amazon does that on purpose, but costs can get out of control quickly if you don't have someone who specializes in AWS cost management.

I don't even know how many microservices they have now. It seems like hundreds, so what do you do. What would you tell them to do with Aurora compared to their other stuff? There's just so much there that it's tough to get a comprehensive understanding of what you're getting into with AWS. And that's just the nature of AWS. It's a giant ecosystem. Azure is the same. I'm not familiar with GCP, but I'm sure it's the same. They do their best to make it as clean as possible from a sales perspective, but the AWS sticker shock is real.

I'm not sure about the exact costs. When I used to do stuff with Commvault and stuff, I knew the ingress and egress fees and the data cost for storage on AWS, but that was a long time ago.

I guess I would rate Amazon AWS eight out of 10. AWS works as advertised, but they're expensive if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not sure if I can knock them for not being transparent about pricing. Cloud costs are challenging. There's an entire industry popping up for managing cloud costs with consultants who can tell you how to get the most out of your AWS allocation. 

I don't have a lot of advice. If you're planning to implement a cloud solution, just pick one. I mean, if you're a Microsoft shop, it probably makes more sense to go Azure. If you're not, then I would recommend AWS. It depends on what you're looking to get out of it. 

There are references, architectures, case studies, and a million other things that would off better advice on whether to go with AWS or not. But if you're looking to go to the cloud, AWS is as good as everybody else. AWS is probably better than Azure and GCP, but that's a tricky thing to pin down. It depends on what your goals and requirements are. My best advice is to evaluate your goals before making a decision.

I hope that people take what I say about AWS with a massive grain of salt because it's like asking an ant about an elephant. What's an ant going to know about an elephant? It's just too big for any one person to know.

Amazon AWS can be used for storage, networking, and for many of the services they have available, such as databases, new site launches, and quick deployments.

Amazon AWS has improved a lot on security and is very good. Additionally, You can integrate your own security into their AWS platform.

The reporting and analytics monitoring are very good features and we are using them extensively.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately seven years.

I have found Amazon AWS to be stable.

Amazon AWS is highly scalable.

We have previously used older servers solutions from Dell, HP, and IBM.

The installation of this solution is straightforward.

The amount of people we need for the deployment depends on the use case and what type of business operations you are running. You can start with one resource based on the requirements and you can add the people as you need them. The majority of the people you will need will be for DevOps and you can scale your team as per your requirements. You can start with one at the beginning stage but you could end up needing a hundred thousand people but this depends on the business growth and many factors.

The pricing model of Amazon AWS is very good because there is an option to pay for what you use only, you do not have to give any money upfront to use it. However, we have some instances where we are on a monthly plan.

When you compare Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, the pricing of both is almost the same. There are some instances when one is cheaper than the other in one area but it is difficult to pinpoint which one is cheaper because it depends upon a lot of factors, such as the use case. However, the overall price of both solutions could be reduced.

I have evaluated Microsoft Azure.

A lot of organizations are moving from on-premise solutions to the cloud. There are a lot of case studies already in the marketplace which you can go there and find case study solutions to your business requirements.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

I was using Amazon AWS in the medical market in my previous employment.

Amazon is a really good solution with high performance. They offer more connectors than some of their competitors, such as Microsoft Azure.

Amazon AWS could improve by being more secure and adding more features.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately six years.

Amazon AWS in my experience has been more stable than Microsoft Azure.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 50 customers that are using the solution.

We have moved from Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure. I have found that both solutions perform very well. The main reason we switched was to allow us to manage where the data was to be stored. We wanted a data storage solution in France which most of our customers were requesting. Two years ago, Amazon did not have any solution to provide any storage in France. 

The level of difficulty for the installation of Amazon AWS is similar to Microsoft Azure. They are very difficult.

We have a five-person team of DevOps and architects that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

If I was going to compare the cost of Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, they are approximately the same.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We use several features of this solution for many purposes. For example, we use CloudFormation for infrastructure as a service, Kinesis for the message queue, Lambda for integration services, and ATC for hosting. 

We also use S3 for storing the data, clustering, Multizone security, AVS to attach hard disk, and assistant.

It is easy to use.

It has many features that we use.

It integrates well.

They upgrade a lot of applications.

If you are familiar with other cloud infrastructures, you can see that it is in need of some enhancements.

It is easy to enhance it to make the clustering easier.

At times, when you use CloudFormation to create five machines with a sequence name, it is difficult but can be done with Terraform easily. 

I would like to see CloudFormation made more in the programming way of thinking. You have some variables, LOB, IF statements, and inheritance, where it's not just the functionality that we have, but gives you the output. They could make it close to the programming language, even if it's a scripting language. They need more control over it such as an If-Then-Else statement and a sub-loop if possible. It will make it easier to create the infrastructure.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for more than seven or eight years.

We are using the latest version.

It is a stable solution.

Amazon AWS is a scalable solution.

I work as a consultant and have a couple of customers. Each customer is of a different size company but they are all over 1,000.

AWS has very good technical support. They react immediately when you need help.

When you speak of installation, you refer to applications already built or software in ATC to be installed. AWS doesn't sell applications, they give you an infrastructure as a service, application as a service, and a platform as a service but they don't give you applications to be installed.

There is no installation required in AWS.

The maintenance required depends on the size of the company. Some larger companies require a larger IT department while others don't require it at all.

A license is required. Some customers will provide their own license and others will purchase it directly from AWS.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in it.

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.