Amazon AWS Reviews

I used the solution to build clusters. We use clusters to scale resources. We can process terabytes of data daily in batch jobs and stream processing. I have approximately five terabytes of data daily being processed in batch jobs on the EMR process. We have a script that upscales the services, resources, and runs the whole computation process, and then shuts down the resources when finished. We will also use a flow as a pipeline to build the scripts in sequence. 

Additionally, my company has a lot of fraud detection solutions. We have solutions such as churn prevention, those models are now a product in AWS, and we use them. The resources and services that AWS provides are online 24 hours a day.

There are many valuable features, I find the EMR in the platform easy to use and to learn. The main services that are offered and used most often are easy to use.

Some services that are not used often have poor quality and need to be improved.

The stability is decent with the solution.

The solution is easy to scale the resources.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

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.

Private Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

To access systems of partner/vendor companies, we maintain an instance to transfer data to our instance, then privately back to us. Basically, a BRAS, B-RAS or BBRAS device.

It improves the speed for us to access vendors, etc. AWS is extremely slow over the internet. Where we have GigE fiber over dedicated OC48 links, and when ping times to Dallas, TX from San Francisco is 30ms RTT on average, AWS is always 20ms higher. To AWS East, it is 70-110ms RTT, and the data transfer almost seems throttled. So I spun up an instance, made a BRAS image, like how DSL customers access the internet, and set up a peer with AWS to transfer data privately, then publicly from our instance to the AWS IP of our vendor, or partner and it has improved response times dramatically. The average API access latency was 250ms, horribly slow - already authenticated, etc. 

We also use it for our Amazon Seller Account and Amazon Vendor Account, where Amazon's systems run. Amazon recently moved their systems to CloudFront, but AWS DNS is awful slow. So the BRAS helps with the DNS as well.

Bidding on instances with dynamic pricing. So, I can do something that is not critical in terms of speed, like a production system, but testing and bid at an uber low price, and I will usually get what I want.

The network is way overloaded. Comcast is overloaded. So between the two, it sucks.

I am used to Level (3) or Verizon/Alter.net AS701 with fabulous ping times and throughput, where I click something and it works. 

It is the problem with the nomenclature of SDN [software defined networking] as engineers today do not understand networking, TCP/IP, or anything. I was 18 during the .com bust, but I remember accessing tools, as I worked for a Global ISP NTT, which owned Verio, the largest webhost at the time. We had Dual OC-3's to our office, when our office was just a remote NOC, but we had cloud computing before it was nomenclature. We accessed customer data, and had tools to do things quickly, instead of logging into routers, IDS, IPS, switches, and server. If it was a repetitive task, it would be via a browser, and the browser accessed a txn server rather than run cron jobs every 15 minutes. I will say that AWS for API, or Seller Central, is no improvement from what we had (our internal tools we designed to update accounts, change customer network profiles, monitoring, MRTG graphs, etc), when AWS should be blazing. 

Accessing apps on AWS via my iPhone is awful. Apple is behind the times in speed, battery, and even the screen, but it is aesthetically pleasing, so it wins. Android devices by Samsung are superior, but I use iPhone because that is what we use in Silicon Valley, which is on Verizon's LTE Advanced (LTE-X is their coined term) network, and the latency is great, 20-30ms, speeds of 40 Megabits/s, symmetrical are quite common, and sometimes I see 150/150 Megabits/s.  

More than five years.

When they first moved Amazon Seller Central to AWS CloudFront from AWS, I would see connections to Hong Kong and Singapore. Maybe I was sent there because the USA East was overloaded. I do not know. So, we started using Verisign for recursive DNS, and to host our own domain name(s), and I noticed, it fixed the problem. Every ISP and DNS server, either Unicast like Level(3) 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.6, Google 8.8.8.8, NTT was the best performer 129.250.35.250/251, Comcast was garbage, while on Comcast network 75.75.75.75, Verizon was good (FiOS [consumer and SMB], and Enterprise which is what we have aka MCI aka UUNET/Alter.net AS701/AS702/AS703), and SprintLink AS1239 was good.  However, we just tested Sprint, and Verizon. Verizon provides backup services for us, actually tertiary, we provide our own secondary.  So I signed us up with Verisign with DDoS protection, made Verizon secondary, and the feed server from us, feeds VeriSign and Verizon. That fixed the AWS CloudFront location issue, which to me, shows how poor AWS DNS is.

We would get responses that are AWS Hong Kong, even when they moved to CloudFront to speed up Seller Central (I complained to corporate via a letter FedEx'ed to Amazon). I asked for a private MPLS link, which we would pay for, and we were told it would be worked on. During peak times, it would lag and time out, it was awful. It still lags, but I route as much as we can via the BRAS setup. 

I have pushed clients towards Microsoft Azure. I have bugged Microsoft to add links to their network in the BNA region, BNA to Atlanta (additional link), BNA to MCI aka Kansas City, BNA to Chicago, BNA to WDC, and BNA to Dallas, TX to improve access for things at BNA. It is not critical. It is just the only facility that is 30ms slower than others. Azure in Chicago, Wyoming, Bellevue, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, or Texas is very low latency. 

I have also pushed clients to IBM Bluemix, as their partnership with Akamai makes API access is really fast. Azure with Verizon CDN/Terremark is fabulous.

I have to add this. AWS sucks, even though I am a customer.

Quick to set up, dynamic pricing, very good support.

Pricy for dedicated servers. The base package for fast bandwidth was more than I anticipated paying.

They have a package where you pay an upfront cost and get locked in for a year, but the monthly cost (or per-hour cost) is much lower. Try this out if you know you'll be with them for at least a year.

Our primary use case for Amazon AWS is for disaster recovery.

The interface of the solution is good.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately one year.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution.

We have three customers using this solution.

The setup was straightforward.

The solution is on a subscription-based model, and it is pay-as-you-go. The price could be cheaper.

Amazon AWS is a good solution.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

Public Cloud

The scalability of the product is excellent. 

The solution is pretty mature.

In general, the cost management in Amazon is complicated. It's not too straightforward. That's a little bit of a problem that they have. 

Sometimes, their interface is kind of old. We see that they're trying to move forward and modernize, however, they've gotten a little bit behind compared to, for example, Azure, which obviously started later, and yet, has a better interface. Not better. I would like it if it was easier to reach certain items.

We have quite a bit of experience with AWS.

We have found scalability to be the most useful aspect of the product so far. it's very easy to expand to whatever size you need. 

We also use Azure and Oracle. 

While AWS is more mature, Azure has updated its user interface and seems more modern in comparison.

We implement the solutions for our clients if they need us to. We deal with AWS, Azure, and Oracle for the most part.

We are an implementor.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've mostly been pleased with the solution's capabilities. 

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

There is a large list of products that are available in the cloud, from computing to mail hosting and server services that are available in the AWS cloud.

They provide you with computing resources and IT services. 

In terms of features, I would rate it a nine.

This is a product that is easy to use and highly available. The availability is good, you can get any service you need immediately.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five or six years.

It's very stable.

It's a very scalable product. We have 200 users in our organization who are using AWS.

They provide support at different levels.

Previously, we did not use another solution. 

We use our own server in the cloud or we use AWS.

It is in the cloud, there is no installation.

Pricing, I would rate a five out of ten. AWS is very expensive.

It's paid on a monthly basis and you have to pay for the resources that you use.

There is no licensing in AWS, you pay per usage.

We have reduced usability to a few situations because we have our own hosting cloud server.

I would not recommend this solution,  I would recommend something from the competitors.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

Public Cloud

I am a consultant and Amazon AWS is one of the platforms that I use.

The best features are flexibility and cost.

Scaling is an area that can be improved. For example, I would like to be able to change the amount of memory that is allocated to a server. This would give us better performance. I know that it can be done but it isn't obvious how to do it.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for between two and three years.

The technical support is good. We contacted them when we were working on a project and they were both knowledgeable and helpful.

The initial setup is easy.

There is some design that has to be done, including security and zoning.

The price for AWS is good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)