Amazon EC2 Reviews

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.

We are using this solution for relational DB servers, application servers, and IaaS. We are also using it for SMTP and HTTP services, for compute services.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to have standard operating systems along with the Windows, Linux operating systems, and their maintenance-free structure, which we prefer.

One of the challenges is the AMI upgrades. For example, EC2 is running on a different AMI, and when we are trying to upgrade, it has mandatory manual processes involved. This is a problem for us. This is an area that we are looking forward to being taken care of or augmented.

Also, when we start doing upgrades, we start losing network connectivity.

We have some issues with the cost, as it's expensive.

They don't have much in the way of optimized support or OS-level support. Also, there is not much visibility in terms of the upgrade. This is an issue that we are facing at the moment.

We would like to see it have something quicker. When we reboot the EC2 instance, the time it takes to come up is a little on the higher side. We are not sure if it is better on the reserved instance, but with the on-demand instances, it's not great. There is no easy way that a preliminary support guy can quickly check why the system is down, or whether there is a network issue or not. These are things that are still convoluted and could be simplified.

I have been using this solution for more than eight years.

The stability is fine, we don't have any issues.

This solution is easy to scale, but it is not easy to change the generation or the instance title. If you are in the same generation it's fine, but upgrading older generations to new generations is painful.

We have more than 80 users in our company. Most of the users are using it daily. The Dev tech team uses it daily.

We have a premium support license and they are efficient, but we have a few instances where the technical support was not very good. A few cases for support were not good but for the most part, they are efficient.

The initial setup is simple with a few moderate complexities, but it's ok.

We did not use an integrator or reseller, we managed ourselves.

The costs are quite high. For our usage, the cost is approximately $20,000 to $23,000 per month.

Know your use cases. You have to analyze your load and use case before you select a particular EC2 machine. You also need to look into the availability and the stability of that particular version of EC2 that you are going for.

Mainly Windows is secure, but Linus and others are difficult to secure.

I would rate this solution a seven out ten.

We are using Amazon EC2 for automation testing.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 is the virtual machines that are available.

If the cost of the solution was lower it would be a benefit.

I have been using Amazon EC2 for approximately four years.

We have had some downtime using the solution.

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

We have approximately 25 people using the solution. We do not plan to increase our usage.

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

The support in my limited usage was satisfactory.

I did not use other solutions similar to Amazon EC2.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 was straightforward and did not take long approximately 20 minutes. We deployed the solution manually.

The solution was deployed in-house with two to three people.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon EC2.

Reducing the price of the solution could lead to an improvement.

I rate Amazon EC2 a nine out of ten.

We don't use all the many features of EC2, we use it mainly for standalone application deployments, and we have auto-scaled and configured it for data storage. It's a domain use case, so we are deploying some specific applications in EC2, and maintaining them.

I like that we can change the configuration whenever we need. We can scale up our requirement so that if we want to add more CPU, we can do it. If we want to add more memory or backup features, we can do that. We're also able to configure some elastic file system so that we can extend the memory or the space in which we want to store the data. That elasticity is quite a dynamic configuration of the machine and a feature we use often. Amazon provides good tutorials and free access to them for a year. 

Amazon has a very dynamic IP. Whenever we restart the machine, the IP gets changed. If you're using a cheaper machine IP, the configuration has to be changed. There are workarounds but it's an issue that could easily be solved. It would be great if Amazon could add additional services into the free tier so that people can explore and add to their knowledge base. 

We've been using this solution for two years. 

The stability is very good. We haven't faced any downtime or glitches.

This solution is very scalable. 

We have not had to connect with the support team because they provide us with a platform for self-service.

The initial setup is very easy and takes about half a day. We're also able to configure some scripts for auto setup. We used one DevOps person from our team to implement the solution. We have automated most things so there's no requirement for maintenance. The solution doesn't require constant monitoring. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

EC2 and VPC are two services that are quite interconnected. EC2 is the Amazon console that uses the host resources in the data centers to launch servers,  instances and services with VPC as the networking part. 

This is a great solution that's stable, scalable and simple to implement. 

We sometimes need to change the resource service levels, whether it's to expand or contract. Amazon doesn't offer that option so the way things work now, changes can't be made without scheduling downtime or preventing users from using the service for a period while changes are made. I would like to see servers upgrading or downgrading on the fly without the end user even noticing the change. It would be life-changing for us. 

I've been using this solution for about four years. 

The solution is very stable. There are instances storage servers distributed on multiple hosts in the data centers and even if there's a failure we're unaware of the disruptions. The solution is stable 24/7, 365 days a year, and we know we can rely on it.

The solution is scalable, we have over 1,000 users. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

Licensing costs are paid monthly for the whole package. That includes the resources that the server is utilizing, plus the operating system along with any database license, such as Microsoft SQL, that you are using. It's quite expensive.

This is an amazing solution although it's not suitable for every company.
They lose one point because the price is quite high so I rate this product nine out of 10. 

We use the solution to host our backend servers.

The most valuable feature is autoscaling.

I would like the ability to connect SMS to EC2 using the VPC endpoint. Currently in the autoscaling process if we have multiple issues we are not able to connect some of the VPC through the SMS.

I have used the solution for two years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution has an autoscaling feature making it very scalable.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. We follow an internal document for deployment and it takes around 15 minutes to implement.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We are using a pay-as-you-go model.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We require two people for deployment and maintenance.

I recommend the solution to others.