Amazon AWS Reviews

• EC2 Container Service
• RDS
• SQS
• SNS
• SWF
• DynamoDB
• Elastic Beanstalk
• S3
• Cloudwatch

• Management of code and assets has become extremely simple.
• Faster development time.
• Applications are extremely scalable.
• Round-the-clock monitoring ability.

• Latency: EC2 Container Service is not quite zero downtime as claimed.
• Not enough or in-clear documentation for some products.

I have used it for two years.

Deployment was fairly simple.

Stability was never an issue.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Cloud is the way to go and it had more features than the competitors.

Before choosing this product, we also evaluated Microsoft Azure.

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.

We use Amazon AWS for storage, networking, and remote computing.

I like S3, load balancers, and Route 53.

The price could be better.

I have been using Amazon AWS for six years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable.

There are so many references that I can refer to, and their technical support is great.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price, in general, could be better.

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

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

I like the storage, all the codes like Lambda and Amazon EMR.

The price could be better. 

I have been working with Amazon AWS for seven to eight years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution.

Amazon AWS is scalable. Scalability has been good for us.

I didn't take part in the initial setup on a very hands-on level. However, I hear from my architects and the development team that it's straightforward.

It could be cheaper, and Amazon could also be more transparent with its pricing. I would first expect any product vendor to give me the utmost transparency on pricing information. There shouldn't be any hidden costs.

Their service offerings have a bit of segmentation, and they focus more on SMBs. They brought them onto the cloud and encouraged them to use solutions on the cloud. But strategically, they should probably improve that and offer some credits.

I would advise potential users to use Azure if they want more stability, but I always warn about the costs. That's why I don't bring infrastructure to the business, and I find the customers with their own environment. There are multiple portions, and it's not straightforward for anybody to do. That's the bad side of it, but anybody can prepare.

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

Most of our applications are installed on the AWS. The enterprise solutions are installed on AWS.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the S3.

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

We are using the latest version.

It's very reliable. We have not had any issues.

It's a scalable solution. We have 25 users in our organization.

We do not contact them directly. We reach out to our contractor and they contact AWS technical support.

The initial setup was very complex.

We have a reseller who helped with the deployment.

The costing model is very confusing.

The cost is on a monthly basis. 

We are happy with the pricing.

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

I would rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

IaaS, PaaS, and a wide range of AWS services, including Aurora Postgre.

We use this for two solutions that we provide to our clients.

• Channel Management automation
• Digital Lending Hub

We are an ISV. AWS helped us to dramatically transform our business model into a cloud based subscription service.

RDS (Relational database service), specifically Aurora. It offers durability, high availability, fault tolerance, and a high TCO benefit.

The rate of new services and features released by AWS has dramatically accelerated. AWS should provide even more support and engagement to accelerate adoption.