Amazon AWS Reviews

We are using the solution for our core applications and our core infrastructure.

The product offers a lot of functionality. 

Our vendor who provides us a specific core application uses AWS and it's just simple for us if we use it too. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has been issue-free. It's very stable and the performance is good.

The solution can get to be a little expensive. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now. 

Technical support is good. We have had no issues with them. We are satisfied with their service.

We also use Microsoft Azure. 

The initial implementation process is pretty simple and easy. It's not complex or overly difficult. A company shouldn't have any issues with the deployment process. 

The costs could always be lowered.

How often we pay can vary, depending on the exact service. We pay, for example, both yearly and monthly.

As a cloud-based solution, we are using the latest version all the time. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

Our primary use case of AWS, for most projects, is for hosting on AWS and developing locally, as well as testing some AWS environments. We are mostly using this platform from a developer point of view. AWS is our cloud platform by choice. 

One of the most valuable things about it, besides the stability, is that you can forget about infrastructure because you're just doing it on AWS. I remember the times before AWS and other cloud solutions existed, and it was a huge pain to get real hardware, put it inside, configure everything, report everything, and do a scale. It was very, very difficult compared to how it is now. Not even just AWS, but what all these cloud providers are doing, I would say, is a huge advancement in technology. 

AWS could be improved with more integration, but I can see that they're developing these features and working very hard on their platform. 

I have been working with AWS for a few years. 

Amazon AWS is very stable. 

One of the major points for AWS is the scalability that comes with it. You can monitor it really well, and you can even adjust down, or sometimes up. What this technology allows is very nice. 

AWS is predominantly used in most of the projects that we have. In my organization, there are thousands of users who are using AWS. 

I have never personally contacted tech support. 

There isn't really an installation for AWS, but you will need certain certificates to download the interface. I generated some certificates, put them on my machine, and then used them to connect to AWS services. 

It depends on the project, but there is usually only one guy needed for deployment. For bigger, more complex platforms, you may need two or three guys to deploy AWS. 

I implemented AWS myself. 

You pay for a license, and that's how you get your own account. These are usually not individual licenses, but rather for a group of people. I think these licenses come at some volume, but I don't know many details about the licensing. 

I rate AWS a five out of ten, but it's mainly because I don't feel very experienced in AWS. I have gone to the console many times and seen many features that I have never used. I'm sure I can learn quickly, though, because there is a lot of information shared on the internet about how to use it—there are a lot of resources that you can use to learn, and there are a lot of features available on AWS. They're working very hard on their platform, and I can only see their usage growing in the future. 

I would certainly recommend AWS to others. 

I use the solution for deploying some applications that use cloud computing.

It offers a lot of tools, which we leverage. 

At the moment I'm using Lambda service and also AC2 machines - as a platform as a service and infrastructure as a service.

The pricing model is good. It's pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use. 

The solution offers a lot of very helpful documentation. There's also a great community that surrounds it that is quite helpful if you have questions or want to learn something. 

Personally, I need to improve myself in terms of the knowledge I have around the product. My goal is to maybe get certified in order to understand it better. It would be helpful if they would be able to provide me with more certification information. 

It's a good platform. I don't have any issues with it at the moment. 

It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time. 

I've used the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution is stable. We have many items deployed in AWS and we haven't had any issues. there are no bugs or glitches. It's problem-free.

AWS provides us with a lot of tools for deploying automatically when we are working, for example, in a new feature. We have options for automatic deployments and don't have issues with size.

There's a lot of great documentation and community support. I'm learning a lot and can find any answers I need there. 

I'm working with AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Computing right now.

I work with my customer's solutions and I deploy into AWS to provide the end product for my customers. I don't directly deal with AWS implementations themselves. 

The pricing is good and it's set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's not overly expensive. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd highly recommend the solution to other users. It's one of the best cloud options out there right now. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We're using AWS for limited purposes right now. The university has its storage, servers, and large amounts of data center equipment, and the cloud fills a niche. We put things in the cloud so that others have access. But from a storage standpoint, 95 percent of the usage is entirely on-premises. We might use it more in the future, but we're trying to build up a storage ecosystem right now. We'll likely build that around some open-source solution, like Ceph or MEAN.io, or something from a popular vendor. 

RedHat has Ceph storage too, and IBM has object storage. I'm not sure what the university will go with, but those are the ones we are looking at. We're using AWS S3 for general storage and storing images. We also use AWS as a platform for building some web services and things like that. 

We've built several AI ML solutions and done lots of work on the GPUs available on Amazon servers. We did a lot of work around web spidering, natural language processing, and machine learning or deep learning workloads. 

I think Amazon could improve some of the security or fine-grained access for metadata and many other things. From a cloud standpoint, Amazon provides more ways to restrict access or provide fine-grained access to different services. For the time being, I think the ecosystem is relatively secure, but there is room for improvement. 

AWS is scalable. It's serving about 150 users at my company right now. All of the users are researchers who do their own thing. Each research team manages its own partition and has fine-grained access to all the services. Small groups of around 10 to 15 people manage their own respective groups as to all the requirements associated with AWS.

We customized our Amazon AWS deployment. The process takes about three to five hours, depending on the ecosystems we are building. It depends on whether it is related to web services or the call configuration. Some configurations take no more than half an hour. If you're doing something involving the server, you need to personally install some servers and some of the other database-related stuff.

I'm one of the AWS architects, but we have administrators who take care of the maintenance. I'm looking at some of the SNIA content, and it seems pretty good for object storage or some of the other storage-related options. I'm still trying to see which solutions are potentially more suitable for us. 

I'm not sure about the licensing. I don't know what kind of subscription the university bought. I imagine it's similar to Cognizant, which had a usage-based mechanism. We bought yearly subscriptions for specific servers while pre-booking some of the server-based storage or computing infrastructure.

We've used Azure also. They are all fairly good. 

I rate AWS eight out of 10. I used to work in Cognizant and TCS before that, and we used different cloud services, such as Amazon and Azure. If you want some kind of public cloud infrastructure, I would go with one of these or maybe Google Cloud. The university is in the process of setting up its own storage or server ecosystem. We plan to store massive amounts of video, images, and other objects, like our AI/ML workloads. 

I am using it for enterprise warehousing. I am using it for web development, data warehousing, and also for building apps.

I am using its latest version. In terms of deployment, it is a platform as a service.

Macie is great. It is a service that makes recommendations on a data layer for cybersecurity. It is a great service.

Its elasticity is good, and I haven't come across any problems with it. So far, everything has been good.

One thing that Azure offers that I think is good is Migrate appliance. So, Azure has a migrate appliance that allows you to run against workloads to determine the cost, preparedness, and scalability. I haven't found a similar feature in AWS. That kind of service would be great on AWS too if you could point it to the data center.

I have been using this solution for well over five years.

I have not had any performance issues.

It's very easy to scale. Its elasticity is good. If you want to scale up or down, you can. You can scale out. There is no problem at all. That's one of the features that I like about it.

We have less than 50 people who are using this solution.

I've not used their tech support yet.

We didn't use a different solution previously. They're the first.

You need to know what you're doing. I know they're trying to make it easy. Some things are easy. Some things you have to know what you're doing.

It seems to be reasonable. It's the first one that I've used as a cloud platform, so they've set the benchmark for me, and now, I'm comparing everything else to them.

I would advise others to just plan out what they are looking for in terms of use cases. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of 10.

We use it to host our e-learning platform.

AWS is a platform, wherein they give you a virtual instance of a server. So there is no version per se. They just give you a virtual server. The other software we use is free. We use it for conducting our exams and everything. We use a free, open source software, which is not a commercial software.

Remember, this is a plain vanilla platform. So we don't have to do any actual investment in servers and other things. That is the general advantage of cloud that everybody gets. You don't have to pay a lot of money. And at any point, if you feel you don't want to use it, you stop. It is as simple as that.

The features that I have found most valuable are their compute and their Relational Database Service.

The features that should be improved are that there should be better clarity on their invoicing. There are so many things they charge for - high line items in the invoice. I think there should be more clarity and more ease of use with their billing.

I'd like to see better ease of use with the billing console and a clear dashboard to understand the usage.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost three years. We are continually using it.

Amazon AWS is very, very stable.

No maintenance is required.

Scalability is unlimited. From one to 10, it is 10.

We use it, but our training participants access it. A lot of people access it. In a year, at different points in time, 200 people might be using it.

I don't think we will be expanding usage because we purchased a little more than what we needed. We don't need to spend any money now. We only pay our monthly charges.

Technical support is good. If you raise a ticket, they're very good. Even with billing, if you have some issues they take care of it. If you are overbilled or you're not using it and then you turn one thing by mistake, and all of a sudden the bill has increased - they'll take care of it.

Previously, we were using general hosting, they even call it shared hosting. But it was not scalable and it was not fast.

The initial setup is all easy. It's very easy.

Our deployment took just a few clicks. You are talking seconds.

I had our technical team do it. But you need a technical person. It's not that anybody can do it or a person like me can do it. You need to have a technical person doing it.

We have seen a return of investment with Amazon AWS.

We are just a customer. We just pay monthly for the subscription cost. I mean, hardly $50. We are a very small company. 

My advice to anyone considering Amazon AWS is that they should plan properly for their spending and they should have good control over their technology team. Otherwise, if the technology team doesn't know enough and they keep on creating more services, you'll be surprised with the invoice. Technology and finance should work very, very closely in the cloud.

On a scale of one to 10, I give Amazon AWS a 10. It's a really good product.

We use the solution for many use cases, such as application hosting, virtual desktops, and disaster recovery.

Customers don't need to calculate what their future requirements need to be. They can start using Amazon AWS no matter what the requirements are and if they increase size it can support them. By using the solution they can reduce their infrastructure, which helps them reduce the cost and of their infrastructure.

This solution is used as the basic requirement for any virtual machines use cases, the storage is used for each use case.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a year and a half.

The solution is stable. We have global customers on this platform. If you see the past records of Amazon AWS, there has been rarely any downtime or something happening.

Amazon AWS is scalable., there are different tools that help to maintain the scalability of the solution. Many of the tools are free of cost. There is no restriction on how many people can use this solution.

We have 500 customers in the Mumbai region and we plan to increase usage.

There is vendor technical support but it is not required if they are taking our support. The customers can directly purchase their support. Our small customers, are purchasing AWS support and they are pleased with the support.

The initial setup difficulty depends on the customer's environment. If it's a simple single virtual machine, then it's a simple setup. If it's an SAP-type workload on AWS, then it is somewhat complicated.

If it is a small single-server implementation, it will take one day to deploy. Otherwise, from an application perspective, your team needs to handle everything and it could take beyond 15 days to one month.

We have our own team that does the deployment.

The price of the Virtual Desktop service from Amazon AWS could improve, it is more expensive than competitors. The pricing model we are using is pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use.

The technical support from Amazon is extra and there are more than 200 services you can use that has a cost.

My advice for those thinking about the implementation of Amazon AWS is to start using it, do not have fear to use these services. If you know how it works and you receive the right support, it always helps to reduce the cost and headache of IT.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight 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.

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. 

My primary use case is to set up an end-to-end application to deliver a business case involving data ingestion, processing, transformation, and checking, followed by outputs to other functions and processes in AWS and also to external systems.

We are using Step Functions as a core automation tool and it offers great power through its simplicity. It is quite easy to use, although there is a learning curve when using the Step Function scripts. Once mastered, after a week or so, the flows can be built quickly and effectively, allowing us to link a custom business process to multiple other AWS service automatically. 

That done, most business cases can be delivered easily and quickly, all in a serverless and cost-effective way. 

AWS has improved my organization by:

- saving us time, cost, and difficulty by allowing us to use serverless services

- enabling us to assemble complex applications with the minimum of boilerplate and plumbing

- allowing us to pay-as-we-go, so we can rapidly prototype, test, and then deploy to a production application setup

We can run advanced demos with our own data very quickly, showing potential clients the value of our services when we assemble apps for them.

We can show customers clear cost benefits and clearly effective solutions when assembling AWS services together. 

The security has great IAM, roles, and carefully partitioned permissions that allow us to fine-tune control across our applications. External intrusion attempts will never get past application boundaries, which increases trust.

The composition of apps has everything wrapped according to function and applications. We can assemble services as we go. This speeds delivery times by orders of magnitude.

The price forecasting and billing dashboard by service, with billing budgets and alerts, have helped us shut down resources that were accruing costs that we no longer needed, saving us money.

The service's power lies in its simplicity. It is great in that respect. 

The UI is constantly being improved and the billing dashboard has been improved.

Previously, we asked for more end-to-end workshops, examples, and tutorials and these have been added and improved. 

Recently, AWS has been adding improvements across services, documentation, tutorials and we have now got workshops with real-world scenarios which are tremendously useful It makes me a very happy user. 

AWS and the cloud is a space for constant learning and AWS has increased their output in that respect. 

I have been using AWS since 2014.

The solution is very stable. The only errors I encountered were my own. Some services took a few minutes to refresh and propagate across my environments, and once these had propagated, the solutions were rock solid.

The scalability is excellent. At no point have I hit scalability limits with AWS services and features. 

Customer service and tech support were excellent a few years ago when I needed them.

My general process is to explore and check options and run from a tutorial or AWS workshop. If this doesn't get me results, I then do a web search, and I generally find either further AWS docs or a specific example I can use to solve my issue. Within the last few years, my colleagues and I have been able to deliver as required. 

We did previously use a different solution when building AWS Lambda cloud functions. I could compare them directly with Azure Functions and Google Cloud and have found that the AWS Lambda solution is simpler, clearer, deploys quicker, and is generally much more simple and effective to use.

In terms of documentation, AWS is the clear leader. Their end-to-end examples and workshops are much more effective.

AWS services in many cases are deployed to AWS after being validated in Amazon.com's operations. This is evident in the ease-of-use and simplicity of many of the service features, and also in the excellent options offered for more complex services like AWS Forecast, where, for example, a checkbox and drop-down allows the user to add holidays for the country they work in when doing forecasts.

AWS has a stronger focus on business solutions than either GCP or Azure, and in many of the solutions, I have used. This is why in many cases I have switched from using other clouds, to AWS. 

The setup in AWS is a whole service in and of itself. To set up AWS applications, AWS offers a full service, CloudFormation, with some added features that allow us to automate the deployment of the full solution stack.

This makes setup complex, in that one must modify the CloudFormation template one requires and validate it. An external resource was required to check the templates. 

Once this is done, the full solution stacks are automatically deployed. 

I handled the initial setup in-house and by myself.

A recently deployed Step Function automation fulfilled all the needs of a workflow automation engine while remaining below the free operation per month, so we were able to deliver a fully automated application approval process without paying for any workflow automation engine license fees or any server hardware or infrastructure costs.

I would advise others to work from an architecture overview. 

Be aware of the very powerful schema-less data services in the cloud. They can help remove the need for data warehouses - e.g. multi-TB datasets - can be read, joined, queried and made to output daily reports within minutes, on temporary clusters, and that cost less than USD1000 per month. This is compared to the hundreds of thousands of USD for data warehouse licensing costs, plus the schema design time and ongoing DevOps they require.

Moving to serverless operations in the cloud frees up your people to deliver business services rather than spend days and days on administering data centers and the associated concerns that come with them.

I also looked at Azure and it was deemed less reliable than AWS as AWS has not had as many outages and uptime concerns as Azure has had of late. Azure Function Apps, Data Factory, Managed SQL.

Besides Azure, I looked at GCP and VMs, Cloud Functions, Speech-to-Text transcription, BigTable, and BigQuery.

Empower your in-house people to start building and running their workloads in AWS. 

Let them learn as they go. There are multiple online courses for a few dollars that can assist with specific, individual AWS services, as well as running through the AWS workshops. 

Incentivize AWS certifications. Involve your tech people with business solution prototyping. 

Tag your resources, name them well, and set budget thresholds. Assign people to tune the resources being used. Incentivize communications and publish the AWS services and features being used to deliver your business capabilities.