Amazon EC2 Reviews

We use the solution to host a web server or a demo server. Also, we use it as a restored target for disaster recovery.

The solution has ease of deployment and good documentation.

The solution could provide a console view. When booting up the machine, you can't see anything happening until it's booted up. You don't get to see what's happening if it freezes while starting.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for seven years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is excellent.

Two users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

We contacted technical support for importing an instance but we didn't get a resolution.

We chose Amazon EC2 because of easy management.

The initial setup is a little complex.

We did the deployment by ourselves with a bit of training. The deployment depends on the project, but it can be done quickly.

There is no cost involved for EC2, but sometimes you need to pay for products you run within it.

You need to pay additional costs If you're using a lot of outbound Bandwidth. It is difficult to predict the cost, so I suggest setting up account budgets and notifications if you exceed your budget.

Depending upon the use case, it is suitable for disaster recovery. I recommend users set up usage limits or track budgets on-site.

Amazon EC2 has been functional. We repatriate some stuff in-house because of the ongoing costs.

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

I use it for NextCloud and for developer purposes. Mainly, I've got pipelines and Go CD pipelines.

It would be great if Amazon EC2 were available for free. Currently, I only use free resources. To explain, my servers cost me £50 to purchase and configure, resulting in a total cost of £100 per server. In contrast, Amazon EC2 charges me between £500 to £1000 annually for a server.

Therefore, the price could be better, and it could be more affordable. Because I run my own servers, the prices are quite high.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for a year now. 

The stability of the solution is okay. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

It's not easy to set up, but I'm making it easier. I maintain the solution myself. 

 For deploying the Amazon EC2, it's quick and easy. I use a system called Nixos, which creates the whole server for you based on your configuration.

Amazon EC2 is a pay-as-you-go service.

Overall, I would rate the product a one out of ten. I wouldn't recommend other people to use the solution. My issue with Amazon is not with the product but with the company's ethics. I wouldn't trust them with anything so I would rate it a one out of ten. In January 2020, Amazon closed down a billion-dollar company just because it was a competitor to Twitter, and they thought Donald Trump would get an account on it. They broke all their contracts, destroyed the company, and left them unable to recover. That's why I don't trust Amazon as far as I can throw them.

We are using EC2 for a couple of things. We have integration with Control-M. We have on-prem integration with the on-prem Control-M systems, and we are using EC2 for that. We are also using EC2 for ECS as a worker node.

I like the AMI-related features. A very good feature of this solution is the customizable AMI. It is a very good feature provided by Amazon. The encryption technologies are also very good. We are using KMS, etc.

Load balancing of EC2 is another good feature. If we have a group of EC2s, automated load balancing or auto-scaling is there. Auto Scaling features are very good features.

The connectivity with on-prem is also very much supported. We didn't face any problems there. We had a requirement to integrate with the Control-M system, which transfers the files from one system to another system. For some reason, we were not able to use the ready-made or out-of-box feature provided by Amazon. We had to basically simulate the whole thing with EC2, and we didn't face any problems with this integration.

Another good feature is that we can go and create EC2 over the cloud service. It has also been very useful for data science purposes.

They can build automatic features for ENSS or network drive. They have the Control-M feature. Similarly, they should have a feature for the network drive that can be mapped. I have not seen such a feature. They have a lot of products but those are quite costly. There is no cheaper option available for the EC2 instance for syncing two drives. If these features are available, it would be good.

It is stable. So far, there have been no issues. I didn't get any complaints regarding EC2.

There might be more than 200 people working on EC2.

I didn't contact them for this solution.

It is straightforward. When I first brought up the EC2 instance, I was still learning, and it hardly took 5 to 10 minutes.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I installed the Windows server using EC2, and I set up some product programs. 

The product is easy to use.

It can scale up.

The product is easy to set up. 

There is no need to have physical space to set up a server in. 

If the solution was cheaper, if the price was less, it would be better. 

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

It is quite a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales very well. People can expand easily.

I'm not sure how many people use the solution. 

I've never contacted technical support. Other colleagues may have; however, I haven't.

We only ever used an on-premises solution. We've never used anything cloud-related. 

The setup is very easy. It's not overly difficult. 

I'm part of the setup and support team. 

We'd like the solution to be cheaper. 

We pay a monthly fee for licensing. I'd rate the pricing five out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our company provides customers with business solutions for APIs, data warehousing, and process automation. 

We have many clients and a hybrid model. Certain customers prefer on-premises and the rest run the solution from the cloud.  

The most important aspects are that the solution is scalable and easy to manage.

Amazon provides great services. 

The initial setup could be easier because many keys are required for access. A more concise or shorter cycle for setup is desired. 

I have been using the solution for six months. 

The solution is definitely stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable because it is in the cloud. That is the benefit of moving to cloud-based solutions. 

We have not needed technical support. 

The initial setup is definitely complex. 

We implement the solution for customers. We have a skilled team so deployments are pretty fast with no challenges. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using Amazon EC2 for two purposes for our customers, hosting the platform and storing assets.

If we were not able to use Amazon EC2, our customers would not be able to use the services we provide. The solution is critical for the services we provide.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 is the computing capacity.

The scalability could improve.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

We have not had any issues.

I rate the stability of Amazon EC2 a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable and flexible. However, it could improve.

We have approximately three instances running internally. We are expected to have more customers using this solution in the future.

I rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 is easy.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon EC2.

When we did the deployment of Amazon EC2 we found it to be less expensive than other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

I am using Amazon EC2 for migration of on-premise to the cloud.

Our objective is to assist our customers in transitioning their infrastructure to Amazon AWS or another cloud provider. We aim to alleviate their workload by migrating to Amazon EC2. The initial phase involves utilizing Amazon EC2.

The greatest benefit of Amazon EC2 is its versatility, including the diverse range of servers available and the ability to connect to various resources.

Amazon EC2 could improve the console view. The ability to see the console view directly would be helpful, similar to what VMware has. Additionally, when the system is rebooting we are able to see a screenshot of the UI, but it would be a lot better if we could interact directly with the console level.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Amazon EC2 a ten out of ten.

Amazon EC2 scales well.

I rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 a ten out of ten.

I rate the support from Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have seen a return on investment using Amazon EC2, but I am not sure about our customers. We see the flexibility of the solution where our customers do not.

The licensing of Amazon EC2 is expensive. Microsoft Windows Servers are expensive to license.

If you're planning to use Amazon EC2, I recommend thoroughly testing your servers beforehand. This is especially important if you're migrating from an existing server to Amazon EC2, as there can be issues with transferring the entire image. To avoid any problems, make sure to test the image you're importing before the migration process.

I rate Amazon EC2 an eight out of ten.

I gave my rating of eight because they are lacking in console access.

I'm using this solution for my company. We use multiple versions according to our needs and different types of instances and OS, like Windows, Linux, or auto-based.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

We have collaborated with AWS on different new service launches and POC, but we are not partners officially. We are a third party.

The most valuable features are the scalability options, low maintenance, and options to upgrade. AWS support is also pretty good. The generation upgrade is pretty simple and standardized. Earlier when I gave a review, we were struggling with it, but now the process is straightforward and standardized. We would love it to be automated, but the way it is right now is okay.

We buy EC2 instances, we buy OS, and we also pay for OS licenses. Support doesn't share or give insights on OS-based issues. That needs to improve because if someone is buying an EC2 instance with the Windows server and SQL license, the client expects that there will be a minimum level of support. We are not looking for Dell support or troubleshooting, but we definitely look for issues that are complex at the OS level, generally.

We would also like to see a better logging mechanism, which can be helpful for the product or generation. An additional feature should be better OS-level support for loggings, which are visible only to AWS support. There should be a way to at least have admin-level access to those so that we can analyze better, or if they come up with the automated generation upgrade. Once you deploy those solutions, you end up using them for years, and in that generation change for those EC2 instances happen. So, automating those will be key.

I have been working with this solution for almost five months.

Support is pretty good.

I have had a little bit of experience with Microsoft Azure. We evaluated it directly in the cloud.

If we compare different cloud providers, Microsoft has its own advantages, but EC2 is catching up quickly.

The advantage Microsoft has just depends on the typical use case. If you are a Microsoft customer and have been a customer for a few years, then you will probably find it easier to handle Azure than AWS. AWS has its certified AMIs available. But native support of Azure is better in terms of those technologies. Similarly, people generally find that AWS is a bit cheaper, but there are personal preferences or design concepts, which will be handled better depending upon the use case or tech stack in different cloud providers.

Gradually, it has improved. Initially, it was complex but it's pretty standard now. It will depend upon who is installing it, their experience, and their familiarity with that cloud provider. Given that we have two rounds of experience, we found it to be pretty straightforward. If someone is new to AWS, it will probably take more time.

The price is reasonable, but there is definitely an opportunity to lower it in instances which are of a higher configuration, because they have been typically used for the long term. There should be custom plans that cater to certain customers who have their uses. The reserved instances prices for SQL server are not that great. We definitely look for such things. 

We are exploring different managed database services, like RDS and Serverless Aurora. There is a scope of implementation on those services, which are pretty new, and most capabilities which are available in instance-based services are not available in Aurora Serverless.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

I will say AWS EC2 is a great place to start. Microsoft Azure is also good. The solution will be dependent upon the exact use case, but AWS EC2 is a good place to start.