Amazon AWS Reviews

I am an integrator. 

We get some courses and communications from the technology, so we update our knowledge about how to use that kind of technology for the cloud.

Cloud Management has been a valuable feature. It depends on how we meet our business challenge head-on with the cloud computing services because sometimes you find that the computing is working fine with Google, and sometimes it's Azure, and sometimes it's Amazon.

One customer is going to work with Azure, and the next year they'll change everything and work with AWS because in our environment the most sensitive data is kept in the on-premise environment the majority of the time. It's more frequent that you can find an environment that has hybrid implementation.

I think in some situations the key difference between Azure and AWS is how they support the hybrid cloud. In some scenarios, Azure will support hybrid cloud better while AWS offers direct connection. Azure provides security by offering information on the whole account where AWS security provides an easy find row. It depends on what the customer wants to have in the environment or how they want to work with that or what is the customer's budget.

Most of the issues are that because it's a hybrid environment, the configuration is restricted with the firewalls. The most common issue that they have found is generated by the person who administers these kinds of solutions.

It would be great if you could find a way to make an architect design and just click one button and put that in the cloud.

I have been using this solution for more than six years.

It's simple because the customer will get familiar with the technology. The customer has to know his company. He has to know it's a new technology and everything gets complicated if the person doesn't adapt to changes. It depends on how they approach all the adoption from this kind of multi-cloud solution.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

My advice is to read about the solution. All of the learning is logical, and you can follow it and put it in practice. I believe it's a great product and great technology.

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.

I'm currently using AWS to create two environments with the EC2 instance. I have one environment for staging and developing processes and another environment for production.

I like ETL, the EC2 platform, and Route 53. These features are a great complement to the basic infrastructure of any company. The AWS platform has many features, but the fundamental cloud infrastructure is the most important.

I've used AWS for around two years.

AWS is reliable. I've seen around 10 issues in the whole time I've been using it, so I think that is highly stable.

AWS is a cloud platform, so it's inherently scalable.

The cloud platform can have problems, but AWS has a good SLA. If a region has problems, Amazon will fix the issue, so the customer never knows. 

Deploying AWS is complex in the beginning. It becomes more intuitive once you have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. However, a person with no AWS experience might find it overwhelming at first. Total deployment took around two weeks.

I rate AWS nine out of 10. It's a complete solution. If Amazon added any more features, that would just be a pleasant surprise for me because AWS perfectly fits the needs of my current job.

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.

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.