Amazon AWS Reviews

We build our own service virtualization tools. We use Amazon AWS for cloud hosting. AWS has a lot of services that we use.

Everything in AWS is valuable? AWS itself is valuable in multiple ways. Whatever I use is valuable, which is the reason we use it.

It has a lot of new features that make our lives easier in terms of what we want it to do in the house.

I have been using Amazon AWS for four years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable, which is why it is used by many people.

Amazon AWS is highly scalable.

There's no tech support. AWS operates under a different model. There is no simple tech support available, as there is in other traditional methods. We have an enterprise account, so it's not like individual tickets; we have an enterprise client relationship, so it's very different.

It is easy to access them.

I've worked with a variety of service virtualization tools.we have not used anything from IBM. We don't use Azure, we use Amazon AWS. AWS as an IaaS or PaaS cloud solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, you can't give a broad overview of your setup as it depends on your use case.

There are numerous use cases, and the setup varies from complicated to very simple in some cases. As a result, I don't want to give a generic answer.

It's quite good, I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

We're using AWS for limited purposes right now. The university has its storage, servers, and large amounts of data center equipment, and the cloud fills a niche. We put things in the cloud so that others have access. But from a storage standpoint, 95 percent of the usage is entirely on-premises. We might use it more in the future, but we're trying to build up a storage ecosystem right now. We'll likely build that around some open-source solution, like Ceph or MEAN.io, or something from a popular vendor. 

RedHat has Ceph storage too, and IBM has object storage. I'm not sure what the university will go with, but those are the ones we are looking at. We're using AWS S3 for general storage and storing images. We also use AWS as a platform for building some web services and things like that. 

We've built several AI ML solutions and done lots of work on the GPUs available on Amazon servers. We did a lot of work around web spidering, natural language processing, and machine learning or deep learning workloads. 

I think Amazon could improve some of the security or fine-grained access for metadata and many other things. From a cloud standpoint, Amazon provides more ways to restrict access or provide fine-grained access to different services. For the time being, I think the ecosystem is relatively secure, but there is room for improvement. 

AWS is scalable. It's serving about 150 users at my company right now. All of the users are researchers who do their own thing. Each research team manages its own partition and has fine-grained access to all the services. Small groups of around 10 to 15 people manage their own respective groups as to all the requirements associated with AWS.

We customized our Amazon AWS deployment. The process takes about three to five hours, depending on the ecosystems we are building. It depends on whether it is related to web services or the call configuration. Some configurations take no more than half an hour. If you're doing something involving the server, you need to personally install some servers and some of the other database-related stuff.

I'm one of the AWS architects, but we have administrators who take care of the maintenance. I'm looking at some of the SNIA content, and it seems pretty good for object storage or some of the other storage-related options. I'm still trying to see which solutions are potentially more suitable for us. 

I'm not sure about the licensing. I don't know what kind of subscription the university bought. I imagine it's similar to Cognizant, which had a usage-based mechanism. We bought yearly subscriptions for specific servers while pre-booking some of the server-based storage or computing infrastructure.

We've used Azure also. They are all fairly good. 

I rate AWS eight out of 10. I used to work in Cognizant and TCS before that, and we used different cloud services, such as Amazon and Azure. If you want some kind of public cloud infrastructure, I would go with one of these or maybe Google Cloud. The university is in the process of setting up its own storage or server ecosystem. We plan to store massive amounts of video, images, and other objects, like our AI/ML workloads. 

We are essentially using a couple of virtual machines. We also use Amazon's transcoding services that convert video formats. We use it for internal purposes, especially for specific applications that it has. 

One of the most valuable features is that Amazon AWS has a lot of data centers and regions where we can position our virtual machines for leverage. Amazon AWS is also easy to use. You can quickly spin up something, use Explorer, building proofs of concept, things like that. Once the proof of concept is built once and we know how things are going to look from a production perspective, we try to move everything to the data centers. These features and the ease of use are the main reasons why we use AWS. 

There are no additional features I would like to see. All the features we require are already provided and we aren't looking for anything else beyond that. 

In general, the only feedback I have is about the startup programs they used to have. Startups would get a particular amount of credits so that people who are just starting their own business could export. This is no longer the case, but it was very good because it helped a lot of people start their businesses. Amazon should consider this again. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is scalable. 

I have never needed to contact technical support. 

I previously used Azure. I was working for a company that used Azure CSP, but I prefer AWS. 

The initial setup is straightforward. I'm technically proficient and did it myself. 

I implemented through an in-house team. We're a small, boutique-type company, but we are proficient enough. 

In terms of price, there are less expensive options. 

We are using open source technology, so there is no licensing. 

I looked at Google Cloud also, but I still would prefer AWS. It has automation and scripts that we can leverage. People are familiar with AWS, so it's our top choice for public cloud. 

I absolutely recommend Amazon AWS to anyone who wants to start using it. 

I would rate Amazon AWS a 10 out of 10. That's the main reason why we're using it. 

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.

Amazon AWS is good in terms of deployment and user experience. Their certificate management and load balancer are also good features.

The sorting model in AWS is a little bit complicated. When you are going through any component, you can get some surprising results.

I've been using AWS for more than two years.

Scalability is something that people are looking for when they choose Amazon AWS. I like that it integrates well with IBM Resilient, which is like a serverless map. We have more than 5,000 employees in our organization. 

Amazon support is good.

Setting up AWS was straightforward. It only took around 20 minutes. We used about five to 10 team members for deployment. For maintenance, we have an architect and some RDS specialists. 

Amazon AWS could have more options and transparency in its pricing model. You need in-depth knowledge to adopt AWS. So someone without that knowledge base might not understand all of the costs associated with AWS.

I rate Amazon AWS nine out of 10. I would definitely recommend it to others.

Our use cases are essentially infrastructure provisioning for backend services. We also use it for environment automation. 

We use it for CIPD. So, this is like AWS Beanstalk. We use it for infrastructure provisioning, auto-scaling some of the container services as well, block storage, such as S3.

It's a suite of services. There is no one thing that you can pinpoint and say that this is the most valuable.

AWS definitely works for us.

There are some subjective pain points, but we are pretty satisfied.

I have been using this solution for six or seven years.

We are not exactly using the latest version. We are using what Amazon rolls out.

It's software or infrastructure as a service, so we use what Amazon has.

We don' use the beta products and try to stay away from them. We only use what is generally available.

It's a stable solution. It's definitely reliable, we have run enough critical business services on it.

It scales extremely well. Most things are inbuilt. It is easy to scale vertically and horizontally.

It also functions on a tiering level, and that is based on what kind of customer you are.

Internally, there is some tiering on which they respond to tickets. 

Overall the customer service support is pretty comfortable. 

They usually respond and resolve tickets fairly quickly.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

They have different pricing models for each suite of services. For example, if you are with EC2; E2 has spot instances and EC2 has on instances. You can pay upfront or you can reserve an instance.

You can pay upfront or you can on an annual basis for certain machines, and you can keep them up which you get quite a competitive discount.

You can take spot instances, as in certain predefined instances, that you can spin up when you need it, but those ten to be expensive because it's ad-hoc.

You can also just go with the normal EC2 instances that are charged at the usual pricing rate.

For us, it's use-case specific and we move between all three pricing options.

Price can always be cheaper.

As a customer, I would wholeheartedly recommend this solution to others.

From our use cases and standards, most of the things are pretty much covered, so we're happy.

I've been pretty happy with my experience with AWS. I would rate Amazon AWS a solid nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our partner.

We are using it for moving all the banking and insurance domains from on-premises systems to the cloud platform, which is managed by services. It is right from data integration, data inception to data processing, to advanced visualization and analytics. We are also using the AI and machine learning aspects as well.

We have been using the data ingestion. 

There are native tools which are AWS Glue, which we are using for data integration. 

We also use the Spark and Python-based integration which are both very good. 

The solution has very good Lambda functions within AWS.

We also use AWS Redshift for data modeling along with the integration with Snowflake.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is excellent.

We've found the initial setup to be quite simple and straightforward.

Technical support is pretty good.

The pricing could be more competitive.

There need better integration tools whereby you could have widgets. It already technically has this, however, if they had widgets that could help with the journey from an on-premises legacy database management system, that would be ideal. There should be some accelerators that can convert and automate data pipelines into AWS so that users don't have to start from scratch. 

Basically, if we had accelerators and tools that can help fast track and leverage existing data schemas, models, and then also, data pipelines that are already set up, it would help items to be quickly migrated rather than doing everything from scratch on the cloud.

We've used the solution for a couple of years. It's been a while.

The stability of the solution is very good. The product does not have any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution is the number one cloud product. It is extremely salable. A company shouldn't have any trouble expanding it.

From a user perspective, I would say from accounts, we are primarily into banking and insurance. We have around four to five of our banking accounts using it. They are a mid-scale bank. 

We do plan to continue using the product.

Technical support is good. Overall, they are the number one cloud provider and they have an overall very high market capitalization. The support they have on offer is very good. We're satisfied with the level of service they offer.

We have also used the Azure platform as well.

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. The deployment depends, however, it could take a few hours to maybe a day, as it is platform and software as a service. It is all managed by AWS. The installation and management require a bare minimum configuration.

The cost structure could be better. It needs to be more transparent. After COVID, it is competing directly with Azure - which is a bit more of a cost-effective option. It's also competing directly with Google. If they were cheaper, they would be much more competitive in the space.

From a licensing perspective, the cost of ownership is based on usage. 

We are consultants.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I cannot recall the exact version number at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've enjoyed its capabilities so far.

I would recommend this solution to other companies and organizations.

There's a lot of due diligence which happens before organizations choose cloud solutions and then, of course, it needs to fit into the scenario. There is a cost-benefit analysis that has to be performed. It's a good idea to compare it to other platforms as well. Companies need to make sure it factors in the strategic landscape and the tools and technologies that the organization already has. If clients need assistance, we do participate in those strategic initiatives.

It is on the public cloud and we are using it for multiple purposes, including data storage and production.

The main feature that I like the most is the variety of solutions that it provides. It provides some analysis, business information and more. It provides a wide variety of services.

One area that could be improved is in data management. They could improve on the data side. For example, I see others with better cloud services and larger data computing capabilities.

We have been using Amazon AWS around four or five years now. 

We use it as a customer. 

I think the scalability on the computer side is good, not too much of a challenge. It is sometimes on the database side where we encounter challenges on the scalability. Sometimes it is not easy to scale beyond that point and we get a scalability error on the computer.

We have around 10 people working on it who do the maintenance, automation, and monitoring.

I would say support is average.

A lot of times I would prefer a better turnaround time in terms of the response we're getting, it should be faster. Often we have to wait a long time before the problem is solved. So it is generally a very poor product resolution.

My initial setup was quite straightforward.

I implemented it myself with one other person.

I would say to somebody who is moving to the cloud that it is very easy to start with. At the same time it is also important to make sure they have a very strong partner or a very strong team in-house.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Amazon AWS an eight on product and technology. But overall I would rate them seven if I include services and support.