Amazon AWS Reviews

The services on offer are good.

I use the RDS a lot.

I've recently implemented more systems on Amazon. They integrate well with various other solutions.

Managing databases, and moving them from on-premises to the cloud is easy.

I need to read a bit more and figure out if the database configuration is off. I'm finding that the solution can sometimes be slow. 

If I have a complex database on the OCI and try to move in AWS, for example, sometimes I can't do it. I'd like it to be easier if possible. 

I'd like to see integration with MySQL.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

I've worked with Azure and Oracle as well. A big part of our database is on Oracle OCI. It might be as much as 70%.

I can handle the implementation process. I've done a few lately.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

While I cannot say for certain, I believe that we are using the latest version. 

We primarily use the solution to rent servers for storing certain commercial applications.

I especially like the flexibility and scalability of the solution. It is totally scalable. 

While feasible, custom configuration will be more time consuming than standard, although we have not encountered many instances which required us to seek support or advice.

I believe we have been using Amazon AWS for more than 10 years.

The solution is absolutely stable. This is one of its best features. 

The solution is absolutely scalable. 

Amazon allows us to scale up and then down, something important to one of our customers who was in need of temporary increases in the throughput provided to the servers. This allowed us to meet the client's needs for the days or weeks that they required more dynamically located servers, after which we were able to scale down. This we were able to do through Amazon. This was difficult to accomplish beforehand, as the client had private servers for which he was forced to buy machines which he would subsequently keep. 

I cannot comment on Amazon's technical support, as we have not made use of it. 

We did use other solutions prior to Amazon AWS. We made use of local service and dealt with projects involving Google and Microsoft. We also used Microsoft Azure. 

Not long ago  we used Microsoft Azure, though this is necessary with some of our projects. We have different projects which vary with the customer's specifications. Some utilize Azure, although most require the use of Amazon. 

When comparing Microsoft Azure with Amazon AWS, I do not see much disparity. It really comes down to a business choice. If the customer is familiar with Microsoft, then the testing team maintaining the product will need to be acquainted with it as well and its ongoing use is required. Similarly, Amazon will continue to be employed if this is already the case. As such, the difference betwen the solutions does not come down to considerations of a technical nature as they are largely similar. The primary consideration is one of business, the use of one solution and provider over another. 

When it comes to standard configuration, the installation is quick, usually taking one or two days to complete. Custom configuration, while feasible, takes somewhat longer. So far, we have not had many instances in which we required support or advice concerning custom configurations. 

The technical team would be in a better position than I to address any technical issues involved in the setup. From my perspective as a project manager, I feel what we have to be sufficiently good. There is much advertising, information on the advantages of the product and guides available. 

Installation was carried out by our own internal integration team, not externally outsourced. I did not handle it myself. It was done by a team specialist. 

The technical team responsible for the deployment consists primarily of engineers. 

I cannot comment on whether we have seen an ROI, return on investment, as I do not possess this information.

The licensing cost varies with the project involved. Certain projects run around $6,000 per month, some less and others more. We handled many projects, each with its own complexities and specifications. The price ranges of the licenses varies with the complexity of the project. 

Broadly speaking, there is a need to rely on specialists for properly setting up one's accounts and addressing his needs. This is not specific to Amazon, however, but is something prevalent with all providers.

I have assumed the role of both customer and integrator. In the past, I worked as a project manager with different projects employing Amazon products, services and software. 

For the most part, the solutions I used have been public, not private, such as AWS cloud. 

The number of users of the solution varies with the individual project. This can range from 20 to 200 to 500 users. 

Our teams have undertaken every role, be them architecture, development, design or testing. They are all internally integrated. 

I am a fan of Amazon products and generally recommend them to others. Of course, we employ Azure and Google products when the customer specifically requests these. 

Since all products have room for improvement, even when this is not apparent to me, I rate Amazon AWS as a nine out of ten.

I use AWS for web services and platforms as well as a digital channel to buy my programs.

AWS is constantly growing in features with every new version. It's a good cloud provider with excellent availability. The integration is good, and their security products are interesting. Amazon is always innovating and delivering new products to customers.

I'd love to see an Amazon data center here in Peru.

We started using AWS nearly six years ago. 

Amazon is expanding its presence in Latin America, including Chile, Brazil, and Peru. The latency and communication will be fast with all these new data centers in South America.

I rate AWS nine out of 10. 

We use Amazon AWS for our development and testing solutions.

I think Amazon AWS is easy to use, and it's a good service. I also like Amazon EKS because it's good.

Like anything, Amazon AWS has room for improvement, but it's not bad.

We have been using Amazon AWS for about three or four years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution.

Amazon AWS is a scalable solution. It was one of the important topics of discussion in our evaluation.

Their technical support is good, very friendly, and provides us with a solution.

I think the initial setup is easy, but you have to invest some time and learn how to do it before setting it up for the first time. It's pretty easy for a new user to set up.

I would tell potential users to create a plan. It's very important to have a plan, especially if it's your first time. This is because different solutions and levels are charged separately with separate bills.

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

We advise our clients on using AWS services. It has many applications; in health care with regard to patient medical history. Some use it for hosting, SAP and V-ware. Those are the most common uses for our clients. We are resellers and I'm the operations director.

I think machine learning is one of the most used and most valuable services, especially in scientific research. The solution is evolving all the time. 

Some of the services are hard to use so I think a more user-friendly interface would be helpful.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

Amazon offers different support plans. We have enterprise support and they generally get back to us within half an hour. The escalation process is very fast, because they know that there is a critical platform involved. They generally offer a high level of support. 

The initial setup is not too complex but it's not straightforward either, somewhere in the middle. In terms of deployment time, it can be anywhere between a few minutes and a week, depending on what you need. 

Training is critical before implementing the solution. There are very good AWS certifications like the certified practitioner, and there's a lot of free training on the AWS webpage that customers can use. Most of the training is hands-on so you can experience how things would be done in a work environment. AWS recently deployed 100 free courses on amazon.com to help people better understand their products. I would recommend looking at those.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

My primary use case of Amazon AWS is doing my Mac backup. 

The most valuable features are how stable and easy to use Amazon AWS is. 

Amazon AWS could be improved by lowering the general storage price. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for a couple of years. 

This solution is stable. 

I didn't previously use a different solution. 

This solution is easy to install. It's quite straightforward since it's cloud-based. It took half an hour at most. 

I implemented this solution myself. 

I pay for a yearly license to use this product. 

I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. I would recommend it to others who are considering implementation. 

Amazon for DevOps is fantastic. Amazon has fast clouds, and the process and the Dev is very good. 

Amazon tools are for more mature DevOps. The process and the Dev is very good, but it doesn't compare to the ease of using the Google Cloud Platform. Google Cloud Platform is easier for the developer since it has many automation features. You can use the many tools to automate your info or create machines. Personally, I like using both.

I have been using AWS for two years.

AWS pricing is higher than other services.

I would rate AWS a ten out of ten.

We use Amazon AWS as a data platform.

The features that I have found most valuable are its cloud storage and compute services.

Amazon AWS could improve on its data warehousing appliance.

Its only cons are on the data warehouse side. AWS' data warehouse Redshift is not as good as it should be.

In terms of what should be in the next release, I would say nothing much other than that AWS has a lot of services doing similar work. If they could consolidate and make sure that the services are defined appropriately, that would be an improvement. Currently, there is a duplicacy of work.

I'm working with AWS for almost five years.

The stability is very good.

You do not need tons of people for maintenance, because a lot of automation will be brought in by AWS, and you can have one or two people to manage the platform.

Amazon AWS' scalability is very good.

There are a lot of features that require scaling - the scale up and scale down aspects of load balancer, Spot Instances, On-Demand Instances, and all those things. You can configure your limits, and based on that, the computer infrastructure can be scaled up.

There are tons of users using it. Whatever the project I work on, there are almost 200 users using it.

There are lot of data engineers, data scientists, and business users using it.

Customer and technical support are very good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The licensing costs are all similar. All charges are similar in nature, such as storage cost, compute cost, VM cost, or VP costs, and all those things. Two advantages on this point here are whether you take Spot Instances or if you reserve for long term usage, then you'll get a lot of benefit.

If you want to use any third party services you have to pay from the Marketplace, but the other things are all pay-as-you-go kind of a model.

Amazon has a great customer base and lot of success stories. That is one advantage that AWS has, whereas the others are catching up. Recently they have more case studies, but for overall breadth of the industry and breadth of the customer experiences, AWS has more customers. AWS has more services than the other competitors.

My advice to anyone thinking about using Amazon AWS is that they need to set up the foundation well, and they need to choose the right partner to do the implementation. The more experience the partner has, the better the implementation will be.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Amazon AWS an eight.