Amazon AWS Reviews

Amazon AWS provides a total solution and helps us to run applications.  

The tool is a hosting platform that we can leverage to open servers. We can use it to build databases. We use cost management and high-performance capabilities of the tool. 

Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities. 

I have been using the solution for five to six years. 

Amazon AWS has bugs. It is not a big issue since the product is a SaaS solution and fixes them. 

My company has around 1,000 users who use the product daily. 

I used Microsoft Azure before. I chose Amazon AWS since it has APIs that I can use for software development. 

I rate the product's installation a nine out of ten. One resource is enough to handle the deployment. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

I am impressed with the solution's EC2 EKS. 

The product should reduce carbon emissions. 

I have been working with the solution for ten years. 

I would rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's setup an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

I use Amazon AWS to host services for my clients, as well as creating SMTP services for them. These are the main two use cases. AWS offers a wide range of services, but I do not use them all.

AWS has a lot of flexibility, which is great.

Recently tried the boot on the desktop, which is where you create a virtual desktop, on a laptop for example. You provide this, and you can use a laptop on the cloud and have everything safe, without having to purchase an expensive laptop.

When I tried with another company, from Azure, which uses the same thing, that with the boot as desktop they had some work needed to make some changes to the AWS desktop. They are not as flexible or powerful as a platform as Azure on this subject.

Previously, they had great VoIP software that they used in AWS, and when I created an account, they didn't have the option to assign too many numbers, local numbers, that could be used for hosting.

In terms of improvement, they should try to give more emphasis to the VoIP system.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

You can deploy and create any number of virtual machines to meet your needs.

Amazon AWS is very stable.

When I'm setting up SMTP servers for clients. They use SMTP as the main platform, but for example, on their CRM, and to be honest, I never go back to that to check for any issues from the day one that I finish the task and provide everything to the CRM developers to proceed with the integration.

We have over 60 companies in our portfolio, and I would estimate that half of them use AWS services.

Going through the chats has left me a little disappointed. It's taking far too long, and I have to come back with questions. The reason could be that they have too many departments internally, so they assign a ticket from one department to another, and it takes a long time to complete the task and provide an accurate solution.

I'm using both Microsoft Azure and AWS at the same time.

I am a Microsoft Azure certified technician, and some of my clients have asked me about some potential within the product. Based on my research, I discovered that this project can be easily designed using AWS rather than Microsoft Azure. This is why I'm learning more about AWS. It is similar to that of Microsoft Azure, and I'm using it, that we can, say, shut down Microsoft Azure completely and then send all of my clients to AWS.

Half of them are AWS, half are Microsoft Azure, and sometimes there are internal IT departments, which need to follow this path, to create the architecture on Microsoft Azure or AWS based on their architecture.

They are difficult to set up. Before you can start using AWS, you must first read the documentation and learn a lot about it.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

It is not very easy, and difficult to complete some of the tasks.

They have a pay-as-you-go subscription. You pay only for the time you use the service. By service, I mean that they are not frequently used by clients. It's the best idea because they are very expensive to them because if it's a small company and you have the option of pay as you go as a solution, it would be less expensive, and better for the company in terms of saving money.

However, if some large clients, for example, use AWS as a hosting provider and compare their prices with other hosting providers, other hosting providers are more affordable. 

I believe that a pay-as-you-go solution is very inexpensive, but not for monthly or fixed prices.

I am a partner and reseller.

I would advise them, before they use the account before they open an account with Amazon, to do their account around just to learn a bit about that solution and then start using it, because it will take a long time to understand how that platform works, how you're going to create a VM on there, how you can create an SMTP.

It is not a simple procedure that we point to and then follows some steps to complete. You must be familiar with information technology. You must have at least basic IT knowledge of a hosting site. This is a platform, and before they begin using it, they must check a number of things and understand how they will proceed.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

It's a powerful infrastructure as a service solution, IaaS. It offers compute resources, storage, networking, and databases to quickly create your cloud infrastructure.

Apart from the infrastructure as a service, the AWS Lambda, which functions as the service FaaS, is really powerful. 

It's a powerful way of quickly assembling or developing applications, which can be scaled immensely and also at a fraction of the cost because you are charged per the execution time of each function. If you are writing a small function as an AWS Lambda function, then you are paying only for those milliseconds for the time at which it runs. 

It's a very cost-efficient way of running applications in the cloud rather than running an EC2-compute instance, which is charged by the hour or by the minute. You typically have to keep the EC2 instance updating all of the time. Whereas in functions, a function is invoked only when a user is calling it. Or, the front-end is calling the backend function. Lambda is very powerful and it is also typically used as a mobile backend. Essentially, it's a very strong API-based backend for mobile solutions.

It has many choices of computer options, storage options, and even database options.

It's flexible, you can run any kind of workload on the infrastructure.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. 

The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable. It is highly reliable.

It is highly scalable. It's a very powerful platform.

In my previous organization, there were 12 people using AWS.

We have used technical support to an extent, and it's fine. We are satisfied with technical support.

I have used Azure Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and I have a bit of experience with Google Cloud as well.

You have to create an EC2 instance, which is the compute. We have to create that to get the compute platform, but you have to install your application. You have to patch the operating system and you have to upgrade your operating system.

The operating system and upwards is the customer's responsibility in an EC2 instance.

It's a straightforward installation because it's your application and your operating system just like you are on-premises, but you will do it on the cloud through a browser or through a CLI, a command-line tool.

The deployment timeline depends on how complex your application is. Because you are getting the platform from AWS as a computing platform, you have to install your application. It depends on the complexity of your application, so it varies.

Depending on how much you are using it, determines the maintenance. Typically, you will need different roles, you will need administrators who operate this environment, and if you are also developing applications, you would need developers.

The installation and deployment can be done by yourself.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

We plan to continue using this solution, and I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

It plays a pivotal role in data processing and application development. In our projects, we've harnessed the power of AWS for a range of applications. One key scenario involves building pipelines to process data collected from devices, such as audio and video footage. AWS services like Amazon Kinesis and Lambda functions were used in conjunction with other services like DynamoDB, SNS (Simple Notification Service), and SQS (Simple Queue Service). Another use case involves handling data from e-commerce websites. We collect and process this data using AWS Lambda functions, SNS, and Elasticsearch. The processed data is then fed into a separate application, which serves various marketing and analytical purposes.

The most valuable is ensuring the integrity of our written code through thorough verification. Also, we've leveraged AWS services like Redshift and Glue. Glue, in particular, is a potent tool that simplifies the ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) process. It streamlines tasks like table creation and data loading into Redshift, making the process more efficient and manageable.

There should be improvement in terms of creating databases of varying sizes which would provide flexibility.

I have been working with it for three years.

It offers good stability capabilities. We haven't encountered any issues or downtimes.

In terms of scalability and data security, AWS excels, which is why it's a prominent player in the market.

We receive data from SAP systems, which we process using Databricks. Within Databricks, our coding approach varies; sometimes we use SQL, and in other cases, particularly in certain projects, we employ PySQL and SpotsSQL. We then process this data, which might involve SQL Server, Oracle, or other databases. For ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes, we've worked with Data Factory. When dealing with data originating from SAP systems, which often includes unstructured or semi-structured data like JSON, we make use of a diverse toolset. This enables us to load data into databases such as SQL Server and Snowflake or any other required database.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The setup process was facilitated through CI/CD pipelines. Initially, we used the AWS CI/CD pipeline but later transitioned to GitLab because we encountered limitations with certain AWS CI/CD use cases. In GitLab, we found more flexibility, enabling us to execute specific functions or steps independently. In contrast, AWS CI/CD typically follows a more rigid sequence, where phases are executed sequentially from initialization to build and deployment.

The pricing may vary and is often influenced by marketing strategies.

It's a valuable tool, but working with AWS can be challenging. I would rate it nine out of ten.

General use cases of AWS are for those needing a managed cloud instance without the bulk costs for a legacy server. We are customers of Amazon and I'm the technology manager. 

The benefit to the company is immense financial savings and the fact that you're able to see your monthly costs before buying anything. The AWS monthly calculator enables you to select your database, servers, volumes, and see how much everything will cost on a monthly basis. You can figure out what you'll be paying, so it enables a comparison; it's usually a third to half the cost of using an on-prem system.

Amazon is easy to upgrade, easy to expand storage and change your EC2 types. Each of those things usually takes at most five minutes to do, whereas on a legacy system you have to actually buy a new system or new hardware and have downtime for installation. Even then it may not be configured the same way and you might end up with a widespread outage. The advantage of using AWS is that all the testing's been done so you have proof that it works. We still do a cursory check, but they don't put anything out there that hasn't been vetted. Plus all the Atlassian tools are on AWS as well. The cloud instances they provide have a very robust network because there are over 160,000 companies that use the tools. Backups are really easy to access as are the automated backups of the VMs and the volumes. We're able to create a new volume from a backup in about two minutes, attach it to the server and view the data side by side to compare the old to the new. It takes 10 minutes total to get all the access needed.

I've had very positive experiences with AWS and it's gotten a lot better over time with their improved interfaces. Everything's all interconnected now and within its own framework. We pull in other tools to the OS such as Docker but AWS provides tools like Yum that enable quick installation of things. It's typically part of the OS. 

While the IAM security key is very secure, they only give you one chance to capture your key. If I'm already logged in and have an email address online, it would be better if it were sent in an encrypted manner to email so that you don't lose the key. I might create the IAM and then perhaps forget to capture it off the screen and then when I do need it, I realize I don't have it and have to create another profile.

I've been using this solution for about 12 years. 

I haven't had any problem with stability. We do multiple zone backups and multiple zone data and we haven't had any problems or slowdowns. We've had dealings with countries like India, where things are generally slower but with AWS there haven't been any issues. There's no wait time.  

Scalability is good. I like the EFS expandable storage because it expands and contracts, you don't have to do anything with it and it's really inexpensive. Somebody may use it for temporary storage where they drop a terabyte of data that they need to give to a customer and then it shrinks back down when they're done with it. It expands and contracts as needed and that's also reflected in the cost.

The technical support is very fast, very efficient and very knowledgeable. Even when I've asked questions and they didn't know the answers, they were able to find someone within 15 minutes that was able to help.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. The main thing is getting the security protocols set up in the proper order, otherwise it won't work. You have to go in and set up the main group and make sure to share it to your database. They've improved their documentation and it's a lot better but still lacks a little in some areas. If you've deployed before, setup takes a couple of hours, otherwise it might take up to a day. It's a lot faster on cloud; if you're working on-prem you have to jump through a lot of hoops because each team has its own security. 

They have scripting tools on AWS which allow you to set up your framework and you can use it as a template. We use an AWS architect for implementation and to make sure all the security is set up. And then we have a DevOps team that manages the OS updates. That's a team of three handling over 100 servers, VMs basically. Once a month they do the non-production patching with the production patching the following week. 

Licensing fees are only applicable if you're using Red Hat or an Oracle database. You have to pay for both of those. If you're using Postgres or MySQL, there are no costs for the actual database application. There are no fees for individuals using Oracle Java, but businesses pay a license. We use an OpenJDK that is vetted by Atlassian so if you don't want to buy Java you can use the OpenJDK.

My advice would be to do some homework, read as much as you can about the setup before you dive in. If you take an hour to review the setup and then put together your own process so you know all the steps required and you use a checklist, it simplifies things. Have some kind of system, whether it's a spreadsheet or a Confluence page where you're documenting the steps and keeping track of where you're at. 

Whenever I'm asked to do something, I can find a tool on AWS that I can vet for our customers, and for that reason, I rate Amazon AWS 10 out of 10. 

The use cases of the solution depend on your project. The project I am working on right now is using Amazon Rekognition heavily, along with S3 and EC2. There are a lot of instances involving EC2. The last one involved using a text-to-speech, of which I don't remember the name, but that was the project's main goal. The use cases depend on the circumstance of your project, so it is not the same for all.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that they offer everything around in just one platform. They have almost everything. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I was trying to build a server with RabbitMQ for some kind of real-time communication in an environment where I was working. Amazon already has a service named Amazon MQ, because of which you don't need to configure your server by yourself since you already have it integrated into the ecosystem. It's easy to ensure that the server is there for your system without any issues and allows you to run it in seconds instead of three or four days.

Price is an area with a shortcoming in the solution that has a scope for improvement. Amazon can improve in some areas related to its pricing. Amazon selected the pricing plans, and I had to choose one. In general, it is an expensive tool.

It is cheap when you are starting with the tool since they have this free tier. However, that is not the reality when you really start working with Amazon since you will end up paying a lot at the end of every month.

I have been using Amazon AWS with different clients for six to seven years. I am a customer of the solution.

I believe that it's a stable product. I never had any issues with Amazon. I'm trying to remember, but I think that I have never faced any stability issues. It was working twenty-four hours and seven days a week all the time.

I have contacted Amazon's customer support. It was just a couple of calls when I was working in Iceland on a project, and the servers were not reachable. There was some kind of issue at the country level, not an issue of Amazon specifically. There was some issue with the solution in Iceland.

The initial setup is a thing that you need to learn. The setup part is not easy at all. Usually, in some companies, you have a person that works only with Amazon. You have one profile in your company just to work with the infrastructure services inside Amazon. You need a kind of specialized profile for that work.

The solution's pricing depends on your traffic since they charge you based on the traffic, not the servers. The price can go into many, many thousands depending on the traffic.

The price also depends on your services since, if you are using Amazon Rekognition or S3 with a low tier price.

Well, for a small company, normally, my advice would be that Amazon AWS is not the best option. If you are trying to use Amazon for the first time, it means you need a big project on your hands, and you already have an MVP running. If you are going to use Amazon for the first time, then you already know what you are going to deal with, so such people don't need my advice in that case.

The price is my concern, so I am searching for some other options to leave Amazon. It is not for quality-related reasons.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

I'm not the developer, so I cannot judge the services provided by AWS, but we run our mobile banking application on AWS. Database-wise, it's heavily based on Elasticsearch, so this is probably one of the main features that we find most valuable. Aside from that, I'm not familiar with which AWS services we are using.

It's too early to say what needs to be improved, as we went live only at the beginning of this year. We started last year and went live at the beginning of this year, so it's still a work in progress. In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud. So better integration with Oracle is something we are looking into. It's the same story with AWS or Azure. 

We introduced AWS in production last year, so it's a relatively new development.

Setting up AWS was pretty easy. It was straightforward to set up, and it took us a year to develop and migrate our mobile banking solution to the AWS cloud. Our migration experience was quite positive.

The pricing of AWS was attractive for us, so that's something that's okay at least for this transaction-based system. However, we still have some concerns about more data-driven applications or those that involve a lot of heavy uploading and downloading. So our whole data warehouse is still something that would not go into the cloud because of the pricing model. So if you stayed pretty much in the cloud, that's fine.

I would rate Amazon AWS seven out of 10. We're really satisfied.