Amazon AWS Reviews

We use this solution predominately to reduce the amount of effort we need to migrate to the cloud. 

We have had some difficulty figuring out how to monitor how many EC2 instances have been networked into our entire enterprise. We usually try to create a diagram outside of AWS. The types of information we are trying to determine are, for example, what hardware devices are interconnected, and when was the interconnection made.

It is difficult to extrapolate budgeting costs and schedules from the information gathered from the usage of the solution in our systems. We are given a large lump sum of money at the beginning of the year for our budget but it is hard to summarize costs to put down on paper for justification or projections.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

This solution is stable and reliable.

We are planning on moving more of our systems to the cloud. Currently, we have approximately 60% of our applications on the cloud.

Our developers found the installation a moderate level of difficulty, there was not anything that was complex. It is helpful to have some tutorials to follow.

The solution is on a pay-as-use pricing model. The price of the solution could always be better but it is priced competitively.

We have evaluated Lambda, and in some cases, it might be a better option than EC2. However, we have decided to go with EC2 because it is closer to a drop-in displacement which works better with our applications, for example, Spring Boot and other similar variations.

My advice to others is EC2 has its specific use case needs like other solutions, such as Lamda. If you have the need for a specific use case this solution could be the right choice. For example, it is possible to have your monolithic application on the cloud and decompose it into your microservice architecture or use it with Lambda capabilities. You can do this and have a high percentage of your application on the cloud. However, you need to be sure it is the right choice, it is something you need to be careful of.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution as real-time streaming to our data-lake. We also have microservices publishing to APIs. It's a customer 360 application. 

We also used the product for migration from on-prem Hadoop to AWS EMR.

We used to spend about $57,000 on-perm with another solution. Then we lifted and shifted to AWS. It came down in cost to about $33,000 while maintaining the same inner software with Apache Kafka. However, we then got into ECS Fargate, and that brought costs down further to about $22,000. When we removed ECS, we moved into a serverless Lambda for 45 million, and our billing is now $8000 per month. It's an amazing amount of savings.

The solution's API Gateway is very good.

The storage on offer is excellent. 

Recently they improved a lot in the analytics that they have on the backend. 

It's great that the product is completely serverless. 

The implementation for end-to-end, for Lambda serverless implementation, is excellent. I do run about 16 million messages per day with their Lambdas, for my API microservices.

The initial setup is not difficult.

We get a lot of exception errors, and we're working with AWS to figure out how to fix that. when we lift and shift . We get a lot of alerts. 

As our serverless Lambda is maintained by AWS, in a certain aspect,  we need to gain some more visibility into what is going on when problem happens with AWS serverless 

Their metadata management in AWS needs improvement. They need a centralized metadata management tool, where it can be integrated with  outside metadata tools  with the API. We really need a central metadata framework.

I've been using the solution for four years. It's been a while at this point.

The stability of the solution is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. That said, initially, we did have a few problems, however, everything has ironed out. It's great now.

Scalability-wise, the product is very good. The Lambdas and the serverless architecture are very good on AWS. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with ease.

We have a lot of APIs, and we'll run them on my customer 360. There are six departments that use the product. We have about 1,000 users currently.

We've dealt with technical support in the past and have not been satisfied for the most part. Azure's technical support is much better. AWS often can't help us resolve our issues. But they brought some good consultants basing on our request and helped us . The account Manager always there when he took over this account .  

 i recommend IAAS AWS , for IPAAS ( integration as platform service) and Hybrid cloud Azure

We've also planed for  Azure. We've found Azure to be much more helpful when dealing with issues than AWS has been. I prefer them over AWS in support , application development  and integration as platform. But AWS has great products like S3 , API gateway , transit gateways , route 53 . AWS has  more OS options than AZURE and database offerings. their EMR is good with spark and python but not well supported for Scala and HBase. AWS serverless offerings are very good with out any major problems which includes ECS with fargate and EKS . But we got a good support from account manager

The initial setup is not complex. When we lifted and shifted faced lot of problems on EMR. Moved to ECS, as well as serverless Lambda, it's was that difficult then. That said, we had to think about how we run our Lambdas, and what problems we are facing or might face.

We're also facing a few problems due to the fact that we use encryption, HCM. When we initially started loading this data, batch data, a lot of Lambdas came, and our limit in HCM is only about 5,000 a minute, however, it quickly jumped up to 20,000 which made it so that we could not load, and errors came up. We had to turn to AWS to get assistance. We just ask them if we can have space over a few days for 20,000 and then they scale it back to 3,000. they helped us 

In terms of the implementation strategy, ours took about eight months. The lift and shift happened within 3 months. Then, we took another four months as we had a lot of problems with our scale-up programming due to multiple issues - for example, libraries, EMR, AWS doesn't have. We faced some problems when we had to change our code according to AWS, or we have to bring in those libraries on our own. So that's where it took time, maybe four months.

For ECS, it took about 30 days to move everything we needed to. 

We don't have a lot of staff to maintain the product. We have about eight people who are capable of doing so. For example, we have someone on infrastructure, who is an architect and we have an enterprise architecture team. I have four developers, two for API and two for Lambda, and one is a systems admin. 

Initial setup environment helped by AWS free . We were able to handle every aspect of the implementation in-house. We didn't need any consultants or integrators. We used our systems manager so that all of our deployments - including environments and keys - can be stored on our SSM. A lot was automated as well.

excellent in covid -19 situation . 

We saw a lot of cost savings when we switched over to AWS. It can really save a company a lot of money.

Azure and AWS 

I'm a user and  implementer.

The solution is on the cloud; it's always the latest version. It's constantly being updated, and we're always using the latest version.

We use both public and hybrid clouds as deployment models.

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

We are using it for certain business applications.

The scalability is a valuable feature. 

The improvement should be done as per business needs. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, 3,000 users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The pricing is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The introduction of the ITD pipeline makes the development and operation cycle easier for the organization.

The solution also helps organizations to move applications to a containerized platform.

Instead of using some third-party solutions, Amazon should include them as part of its offering.

Currently, we are using some third-party services for various purposes. Amazon can acquire those open-source products and provide them with managed services.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about six years.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is always high, and the customer can seamlessly scale up the solution. I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is very easy. Amazon AWS is the easiest cloud platform to learn and deal with compared to any other provider.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten for ease of initial setup.

Any service built on AWS is very easy and quick to deploy and does not take much time. Within 10 to 15 minutes, you can bring a server up and launch a website.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

Amazon AWS was deployed on the cloud in my organization.

Overall, I rate Amazon AWS an eight 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.

We're a native AWS customer and a provider as well. We have multiple solutions running in there, and we are also doing infrastructure as a code and infrastructure as a service. For example, we can offer you lower prices than the price that you would pay for an AWS instance because we are an official partner of Amazon. So, we are taking all the advantages of what we currently have with AWS. 

It is being used for ECM. In terms of deployment, from an AWS perspective, it is partly self-developed based on Terraform, and we are also using services like S3, S9, and all the things we have in AWS for DNS, but it is highly automated. When a customer comes in and says that they need an instance clustered with certain options and a certain amount of service, it's usually firing up one line of code, and then everything gets set up, including the infrastructure.

We're working with its newer version.

Scalability is one of the biggest benefits we have.

We have a very good approach internally with what we have developed. It involved overcoming some hurdles regarding the single point of truth or single point of configuration, which is sometimes not that easy for AWS. There are dashboards and you have your web service, but bringing all these together and orchestrating is sometimes quite difficult.

My estimate is six years, but it might be way earlier. We ramped up way early with AWS on the market and developed together with them.

It is very scalable. Our customers are from every corner you can imagine. There is no specific type of customers we are serving.

We have a direct relationship with AWS. We are not running with the usual support with AWS. We have other possibilities and are directly integrated. 

It is easy. With our solution, it's really a piece of cake. Even my seven-year-old would be able to set up a cluster with high availability, as long as I tell her what to enter.

It is quite expensive in my very personal opinion. Going on-prem in a data center is, for sure, not as expensive as going to AWS, but when it comes to a point where you are raising and growing, it simply makes a lot of sense to stay in AWS. It is awesome in that way. I am not aware of any extra costs.

Azure is something that we are currently looking into as a second option, but there are no concrete actions planned.

It boils down to two points. The first point would be to have correct planning. You need to know what you want to do and you need to be familiar with what you can do in AWS. The second very important point is that you need very stable and very good monitoring of your AWS instances. This is mandatory because if you fire up a very expensive environment and forget it over weeks, you need to pay for that. I've seen a lot of companies struggling to get an overview of all these AWS machines. It starts by tagging and so on.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features of Amazon AWS are the EC2 instance for web applications with CDN Networks.

AWS Cloudfront is the official reference for the Global content delivery network (CDN) which significantly reduces latency or slow loading times.

There is a feature called Kinesis, which has to do with image processing. There are a few artificial intelligence tools that Amazon AWS should improve on.

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately five years.

I have found Amazon AWS to be stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable.

The technical support has been challenging. I have found more tickets are being placed and the availability of the agents has been limited for some of the team members.

We selected Amazon AWS because it was the most mature at the time. It was the initial cloud provider. Then Google and Microsoft also came up with Azure and TensorFlow. TensorFlow is catching up with a few code web programming tools, and that is a point of interest as well as image processing.

In a future release, the solution could improve on the IoT integrations and API access.

The initial setup of Amazon AWS is complex due to how infrastructure is set up in different organizations.

For the initial 12 months, the solution is reasonably priced. On enterprise license contracts where you negotiate, have been reasonable too.

I would encourage the student package for someone who is starting out, they can get acquainted with the interface and the tools available.

I rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We are both a user and a provider of services to some of our clients. We are not official partners, but we provide regular services to set up our clients' infrastructure on AWS. We deploy their projects there with their own account so that we can hand over technical ownership whenever they need it. As a result, they can continue to provide their services to other consultants. we offer these services to set up their systems and their services.

We use Amazon AWS mostly for typical hosting for applications, some emails, queuing services, and databases most of the time.

I am not sure what features they'd like.

AWS has large community support. You are never stuck with anything if something doesn't work in time.

We don't have any issues for the time being, because I intend to use this in a limited, not exhaustive, manner. For the time being, we're fine with whatever we're doing.

The billing should be more competitive.

I have been using Amazon AWS for more than two years.

As AWS is online we are always using the most current version. We have some virtual machines that you create based on the version when you initialize them, but the services that you use on a daily basis are always the most recent version.

We have a limited number of users and use standard services.

There have been no issues. The support is good.

There are no issues at the moment.

We were hosting on bare metal servers. Then we moved on to VPS servers, which were managed by our technical staff. And now we're utilizing cloud services.

That technical management part for the multiple VPS, as well as for ourselves and our client, is taking a long time to maintain and everything. As a result, we went to manage services.

These are some additional options. I've seen that Azure has the best cloud dashboard, but the billing and other features are very difficult to use. The same as any other cloud service. The documentation is far superior.

The installation is straightforward.

Cloudflare and other services are developing more affordable solutions. They provide a much cheaper alternative to Amazon's S3 storage buckets. That's something that could be improved.

This should be comparable to the other options on the market.

Billing for cloud services can be difficult at times. In the VPS, you only have quota-based billing management, but in the cloud, it's as if every bit and byte and every I/O operation is metered, and your bills can be surprisingly high when you've published something that can attract a lot of traffic, which is one catch.

We researched Microsure and Google Firebase, but we are not using these solutions.

I'm not an expert. I don't have any advice at the moment, but whenever they're looking to host some applications, when there's a lot of traffic or bandwidth, they should think about it carefully. 

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.