Amazon AWS Reviews

We're building an application and host on Amazon. We are a startup company, so it's in a very early development stage. We're trying to build a particular application for multiple customers. The idea is if you have a VPC for each customer you can segregate each client with their own isolated environment. That's what we're building. We're going to build one application that can be personalized for each client. 

The fact that we as a startup don't have to invest in expensive hardware and a place to house it is very helpful for our small business. It saves us money in the long run in overhead costs and allows us to stay streamlined. There's no heavy investment on the outset and we're really just renting the exact amount of what we need.

AWS is a cloud platform. There are hundreds of tools within it. The cloud handles the updates so we never have to worry about looking for the latest version of the solution.

The solution offers a low footprint. We don't have to come up with a data center ourselves. We basically don't have to own any hardware. We just rent a slice of their platform and we have everything we need.

The biggest area for improvement is the fact that there are a vast amount of tools. The best way to describe it is this: you have lots of Lego pieces, hundreds of Lego pieces, but they all do something specific. However, it's very difficult to understand the purpose of these tools, how are they fit into our environment, our design ideas, etc. To assemble all of these tools, to make them fit into the architectural vision of the company, is very difficult. This is especially true for a startup that doesn't have unlimited resources for research and study. We cannot comprehend the vast amount of information that Amazon produces.

The pricing is very confusing.  

They should really consolidate and make things simpler rather than offer you hundreds of random options. The way everything is arranged really forces users to figure out everything on their own and then, on top of that, to calculate the total costs. There's an infinite number of combinations even just with cost calculations. It's too much. 

While the company has been around for three years and has used the solution since its inception, I have only worked here for three months and have a total of three months of experience with the solution.

The solution is very stable. AWS is quite reliable and we haven't had issues. There haven't been bugs, glitches, or crashes. It works well and as expected.

AWS is extremely scalable. It's designed to be. The sky really is the limit. Users and organizations can expand as much as they like.

We're a small company right now. We're still in the startup phase. We have about 20 people at the moment. We have a dozen developers directly on it now. That said, you probably only need two people for development and maintenance.

We do plan to expand in the future.

Personally I haven't used their support yet. I cannot give more info. I've only been at the company for three months and haven't faced any issues that required me to reach out to technical support.

We are just a startup so the company is young. The founders made the choice to use the database and they've used it since day one. 

The initial setup is both really straightforward and complex. At first, it's simple. However, as you get deeper into the solution and work in all kinds of variations or all kinds of scenarios, things get really complex. The more you have to consider the more complicated it can get. The complexities multiple quickly.

We use Terraform to provision the best infrastructure, which makes our platform really easy to manage in terms of our implementation strategy.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We didn't need to hire on an integrator or consultant to assist us.

The calculating of costs is quite difficult. There are all kinds of variables to consider and it's all very unclear.

It's my understanding that our company is charged a few hundred dollars on a monthly basis.

My understanding is that this product was used from day one. I don't think other options were considered. However, I was not at the company when AWS was implemented.

We're a startup company. It's a very small company with only 20 people. Everything we use is cloud-based. We're simply a customer of AWS. We don't have a special relationship with the company.

I'd warn others considering using the solution that the environment is vast and complex, and a company will need a lot of tools at their disposal for research and to understand the product. If there are people within the organization who already have experience with the architecture or with similar solutions within the AWS environment, that will help make implementation successful. It's important to bring people who have previous AWS architecture experience into the organization.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It does do everything we need it to do, however, as a small company, figuring it out is a big effort. Making it more streamlined or straightforward in the future would probably give it higher marks.

Auto Scaling and CloudWatch Logs are the most valuable features. With just a few criteria to scale in/out of, you can save the life and time for DevOps.

The CloudWatch Logs feature provides many plugins, so that we are able to manage various types of logs centrally.

In the era, we used private clouds as network virtualization must be controlled by the IT division, server rooms were in the remote branches and DevOps were distributed in various areas. Now, we can use the same API and the same workflow without considering to centralize the logs.

IaaS is sometimes way too complicated to complete one task.

I have used this solution for around eight months.

So far, the VPC is sometimes not that reliable. Therefore, we have to set up a redundant VPC to make sure the connection is always available.

We do not have any scalability issues until now.

I have never used technical support.

Previously, we surveyed OpenStack. However, due to the time, budget and manpower limitations, building a private cloud is not practical in our case.

Managing IaaS was very difficult in the beginning, i.e., tons of jargon to get up and I struggled for months.

Try the Google Cloud Platform (GCP). It is yet another good choice because sometimes, what you need is just a platform and not to build a platform from the infrastructure.

When your division grows to a certain scale and you really need DevOps, then you could move either to a private/public cloud. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and money.

We use the solution for cloud service and analytics. 

The tool's most valuable features are AWS Security Hub and AWS GuardDuty.

There are plenty of areas for improvement. For example, the ease of tagging could be improved. The tool could integrate AI tools to identify better and manage costs. Calculating the cost of some services could be more straightforward.

I have been working with the product for six to seven years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate Amazon AWS' scalability a ten out of ten. My company has 200-300 users.                   

The quality of technical support depends on how much you pay. 

Neutral

We used GCP before and switched to Amazon AWS because it was cost-effective. 

I rate Amazon AWS' deployment ease as five out of ten. It can take a few weeks to complete. 

The deployment process was completed in-house.

The solution's ROI is good. 

I rate the tool's pricing a six to seven out of ten. 

I recommend the solution to others because of our smooth experience. I rate it an eight 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.

We use AWS for multiple purposes, such as developing APIs and API integration using API Gateway. We use API Gateway, Python Combinator, Lambda Glue, and ETL Process. We have used EMR for big data processing. If we need a tool for computing, we go with the Lamda DMS. There are many services available in AWS that meet our needs.

The feature that's most valuable depends on your use case. Elasticsearch is good for testing and DynamoDb for database applications. There are so many things I could name, but you have to go with the service that is right for the use case you are looking for.

AWS has room for improvement on the Kubernetes side. I would like to go a little deeper into the Kubernetes target, Elastic, inner system, and all that. The EKS, target, and all these areas need to be improved, but that is not my key area because I am mostly working on the application side. However, I sometimes still need to work with Kubernetes container management.

I've been using AWS for the last seven years.

AWS has "11 9s" service availability, which means the service is available 99.99999999999 percent of the time. 

I would rate AWS support four out of five. They're good. I can activate cases on the technical calendar through AWS development support. I've gotten a lot of support through AWS Blue. 

Positive

The deployment complexity depends on which template you're using: AWS Terraform or CloudFormation. It's easiest to deploy services via Terraform, so you can go with that. That is the most straightforward way, and you can do all automation within Terraform.

I rate AWS nine out of 10. Everything is moving to the cloud now, and AWS covers a lot of services, including computing, networking, storage, IoT, and management, and they are good in every way.

They face competition from GCP and Azure, but Azure is entirely a Microsoft stack, so people will go with that when they're working with Microsoft solutions. It is a little cheaper than AWS. In the end, the cloud you choose depends on the use case. It's up to the customer.

We used Amazon AWS when we work on a lot of projects in different situations or scenarios. We have done migrations from on-premise to cloud computing, projects involving data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning.

Many of our customers use the website application that is hosted by Amazon AWS.

We have many projects where we can resolve a lot of issues with Amazon AWS. It has given customers a lot of visibility with their data. Many customers do not know what they can learn from their data and I provide them with this using useful information using Amazon AWS. 

The Redshift features are very useful for large amounts of data. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for approximately two years.

The solution is very stable.

Amazon AWS is scalable and it is very important for our customers.

We have a lot of customers using this solution and our largest customer has approximately 16,000 users using the solution.

The technical support is very good.

The difficulty of the implementation depends on the project. We have a lot of very complicated and complex project which make the implementation more difficult. However, a small project can be very simple to implement. In general, over 90% of the project tend to be complex implementations.

We are on an annual subscription for Amazon AWS.

We create some processes to resolve some questions the customers have. They want to improve and have more visibility of their data, and how to extract information about their data. We help them with this problem.

Amazon AWS is the most important provider in the market. They have helped many of my customers.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten.

You can design and customize solutions with AWS. It has so many options, including storage, computing, database, notification, and messaging solutions. It depends on what the application team designs. 

I like AWS for its scalability, reliability, and availability, and it's much more mature and user-friendly compared to some other cloud providers. The learning curve and time for deployment are also shorter.

Amazon needs to develop better tools for troubleshooting network traffic, application insights, performance, and even some aspects of integration mapping. I'm hoping AWS implements something like Azure's Network Watcher and a log analytics solution where a can pull logs from various services and present them in a single dashboard. I want to summarize the performance and usage of every service and application.

All cloud solutions are scalable. It depends on the design, but most of them scale well. There are tens of thousands of users working on the solution.

Amazon technical support is great.

Deploying AWS could be straightforward or complicated depending on the use case. If it's a simple application, you can deploy it within a day. If it's very complex and your team isn't experienced, it can take months.

The amount of maintenance needed depends on your application and how you define support and maintenance. Some staff will handle things internally and others will be responsible for the cloud applications. 

I would say AWS is balanced. Cloud solutions are not cheap, and the ROI could vary widely according to your usage.

The cost depends on the usage and applications. If you're hosting thousands of applications, you'll be paying tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to usage fees, you have to factor in the costs of development teams and the staff you need to support the applications. These are the three costs you need to kind of calculate to decide on the budget.

I would rate AWS 7.5 out of 10. There are a lot of options in this space, and Microsoft is also good. We are evaluating the data on each. We would rate Azure close to eight, so they're both great solutions.