Amazon CloudWatch Reviews

While we have used CloudWatch, we have not used it extensively. We should start monitoring our applications once it starts performing in production. We are not at that stage yet. However, we have implemented it. In the end, we will use it mainly to monitor our applications.

It's a very simple logging system. It's a very simple monitoring system, however, you have other advanced services as well if you choose to go more advanced. This is a simpler product that we can use right away.

The implementation process is very simple.

It's not an advanced way of monitoring.

I haven’t used the solution for that long.

Until now, we haven't seen any stability issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It is reliable.

I’m not aware of the level of scalability on offer.

Right now, for monitoring, what we do is, we have a login into an SQL server.

It's very easy to implement. It's simple. These are solutions that are very simple to use, and therefore, there isn’t really any complexity involved.

You may not need so much technical knowledge or information to use this product. That said, there are some policies where you would need to know how to write the script. Still, it would be simple for anyone to use quickly.

I'm not aware of the pricing.

Since it is a cloud solution, we are likely on the latest version, although I don’t know the exact version number.

This is a basic version that you can start using right away, and there's nothing too technical to think about or to know. You can implement it right away and then try to scale up or advance on the monitoring.

I would rate the product eight out of ten.

Our company used the solution for a project that included data message and data lake architecture, performance testing, and an engineering solution to monitor virtual machines or the S3 bucket. 

The solution monitored key performance indicators for almost all services including Aurora, Fargate, Lambda, Snowflake NoSQL databases, and Sumo Logic.  

The solution effectively monitors golden signals like CPU, page requests, and queues. 

The solution's integration could be easier for laypersons. 

The solution should move from being a performance monitoring tool to a full stack content management system with a hybrid DPM tool that integrates front-end, browser-specific, and footprint-specific monitoring metrics and synthetics. 

The solution's interface could be improved to enhance user experience by including Kendo UI or React.js frameworks. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The stability is quite impressive with a 99% availability rate. 

The solution uses metrics and measurements to scale data which then gets routed to a NQ at an Amazon data center. 

Data on the front end takes time to appear because of how the solution is designed. The UI interface takes some time to refresh large volumes of data so on occasion there is a lag. 

I rate stability an eight out of ten. 

The scalability is based purely on your stack and requirements. 

Our project involved processing billions of records and performance expectancy was 99% which is pretty impressive. 

I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup was a bit complex because we were new to AWS. 

It took us time to integrate EHNs because we had difficulty discovering traffic and TCP connections. 

The KPIs that needed to be monitored were books of medium to high complexity. 

As we became more proficient, we progressed quickly but that always depends on the complexity of the stack. 

For example, Java is easy but .Net is complex because many services are not API exposed so they have their own DLS running on machines. 

Our company worked with the client's IT operations team to implement the solution. 

More than ten architects worked both onsite and offshore to conduct engineering, performance testing, integrations, and monitoring. 

A big management team consisting of 30 onsite and offshore developers, QA technicians, and performance managers monitor the enterprise because it processes billions of records. These user groups have restricted access based on their roles. 

The pricing model is pay-as-you-go so you have to be mindful of usage to manage costs. 

Scalability is not limited because you can add components and integrations at any time.

Data gets stored on your EBS in RSN S3 buckets. Some free space is provided based on your configuration, but additional space is paid. Storage fees can be per unit or by the minute. 

The pricing model can get very expensive as the project's scope grows. 

The solution is expensive so a better option might be to use New Relic, Dynatrace, or Zabbix for open source monitoring. 

A central repository lock trail and analytics dashboard could be created in Tableau that stores metrics in one particular location and analyzes data using one particular dashboard. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Amazon CloudWatch for infrastructure and serverless monitoring.

The most valuable feature of Amazon CloudWatch is the monitoring and UI.

Some of our customers want to use Kubernetes to monitor their CICD flow but Amazon CloudWatch does not support it. We need to use another solution, such as Datadog or Dynatrace has the needed capability.

In a future release, the vendor could add automation for quicker integration and improve the visualization similar to other solutions.

I have been using Amazon CloudWatch for approximately five years.

There has been some leg in the use of the solution.

We have five or six customers using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Amazon CloudWatch a seven out of ten.

I have used Datadog. If we want to do any basic infrastructure monitoring, such as CPU. If our customers want to do automation, Kubernetes, and application monitoring, we use Datadog because Amazon CloudWatch does not have these features.

The initial setup of Amazon CloudWatch is simple. Everyone can do it if they learn how to do it.

The price of Amazon CloudWatch is reasonable for detailed basic monitoring.

I have evaluated many tools, such as SolarWinds New Relic.

Most of my customers are using Datadog.

I rate Amazon CloudWatch a six out of ten.

We use Amazon CloudWatch for monitoring infrastructure for EC2 instances. We created CPU, memory, system, status, and disk utilization checks. Based on those checks, we created actions such as disk cleaning by running a command, integrating with Lambda, and sending email notifications. We use the basic functionalities of Amazon CloudWatch.

Amazon CloudWatch helped improve my company through notification and automation. The tool is integrated with actions, so if an alarm gets triggered, you can execute an action through Amazon CloudWatch. Task automation through Amazon CloudWatch has improved the company's overall efficiency in terms of the time to resolve issues, so the tool has been beneficial.

What I found most valuable in Amazon CloudWatch is that it gives you detailed information, which I found helpful because it can even provide you with data for the past one minute, which is quite granular. That was what helped me most in terms of finding the root causes.

Task automation is another valuable feature of Amazon CloudWatch.

What would make Amazon CloudWatch better is if it includes more on-site checks, particularly status checks on the CPU, network input/output, etc. It would also be helpful if there's built-in swap space, disk, and memory monitoring in Amazon CloudWatch because, at the moment, my team has to configure it manually through a shell script.

Amazon CloudWatch is a pretty complete tool with many features, so apart from the improvements I mentioned, there isn't anything else I want to change in Amazon CloudWatch.

I've been using Amazon CloudWatch for almost two years.

Amazon CloudWatch is a very stable tool.

Amazon CloudWatch is a scalable tool because it has no limitations in the number of systems and alarms you can create.

I'd rate support for Amazon CloudWatch four out of five, but this is because my company has AWS premium support, so I'm unsure how it is with others with a different level of support with AWS.

We didn't use a different solution before using Amazon CloudWatch.

The initial setup for Amazon CloudWatch was quite okay, particularly for the standard alarms provided by Amazon. Still, for the custom alarms, such as memory and disk alarms, you have to put in some effort because if you make changes to the system, you'd also have to make changes in the scripts as well, so if that could be automated, it would be beneficial.

We implemented Amazon CloudWatch in-house. We're in consulting, so in a way, we're the third party who can implement the tool.

As my company only had to put in a small investment for Amazon CloudWatch, and the tool helped in terms of monitoring, alerting, etc., and is quite a good tool, in my opinion, it gave my company good ROI.

Amazon CloudWatch has very cheap pricing, and it hardly costs my company $25-$30 a month for fifty systems, so it's pretty affordable.

My company didn't evaluate other options because Amazon CloudWatch was pretty native. It was the only tool that was there, so Amazon CloudWatch was the only tool my company used and nothing else.

Amazon CloudWatch is a web-based tool, so there's no version control for it, so you could say it's always the latest version provided by Amazon. It's deployed on the cloud.

Almost everyone from the technical team within my company uses Amazon CloudWatch, so that's five to six people in total.

One to two people is enough to handle the deployment and maintenance of Amazon CloudWatch because it's a one-time process. Once it's done, you don't need to change it in a way, so one to two people would be fine.

As Amazon CloudWatch is an essential tool for my company, usage of it will gradually increase with new projects or instances because of the basic infrastructure monitoring and similar features it provides; however, there's no plan to expand in terms of doing more with Amazon CloudWatch.

My advice to others looking into implementing Amazon CloudWatch is that Amazon has pretty sufficient documentation on installing the tool and configuring the alerts. Still, it would be better to have a script deployed through Lambda to create alarms or use the Amazon SSM Agent to create the alarms instead of manually doing it.

I'd rate Amazon CloudWatch as eight out of ten because it does whatever it promises, and it's a good tool for monitoring and alerting.

We use the solution for monitoring purposes. We also use it for events and alerts. 

We can create events and alerts. We use the information to dive down into the infrastructure performance.

The product's configuration has some challenges. The solution needs to be more user-friendly. 

I have been working with the product for five years. 

The tool's stability good. 

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has 10-15 users for the product. 

The product's setup is easy. The tool's deployment depends on scenarios like the metrics, events we create, etc. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use CloudWatch to monitor our infrastructure and resources, such as bandwidth, etc. It comes with the AWS package we use, and it's easier when all your services come from one vendor. 

The alarms are one thing I love about AWS CloudWatch. It has alerts that notify us when resource use is approaching the limit. 

The graphical interface has room for improvement. CloudWatch only gives you a breakdown of what's wrong. However, it would be nice if it could automatically remedy the problems it identifies. You should be able to configure it so that when a specific condition arises, it will take a predefined action.

I've been using CloudWatch for two years.

I rate AWS CloudWatch nine out of 10 for ease of setup. Deployment is practically instant. 

The price is worth it because it saves you money in the long run. 

I rate AWS CloudWatch nine out of 10. It gives me an idea about my resources through logs, metrics, etc. I recommend it. It's easy to understand, with graphs showing the services running on your applications and the resources they're consuming. You can also track your billings, and identify the services consuming too many resources and terminate instances if necessary. 

We use it for testing environments.

There is room for improvement in terms of stability. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. 

I deployed the solution myself. We need cloud architects and engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. I would definitely recommend using the solution.

We use the solution for monitoring the traffic. We analyze any suspicious traffic detected by AWS.

The monitoring feature is valuable. AWS provides a detailed document of how CloudWatch works and how we can integrate and utilize it. We get a summary of all the logs explained in the documentation.

The product should provide more features.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

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

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. Almost 100 people from three to four teams use the solution in our organization.

We have reached out to the support team a few times. The technical support is very good. Sometimes, we don’t even have to reach out to the team. If they detect any issue, they email us about it.

Positive

The initial setup was quite easy.

I have seen an ROI on the solution.

People who want to use the solution can follow the AWS documentation for configuring the product. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.