Amazon S3 Glacier Reviews

I use Amazon S3 Glacier to store large files and documents for long-term archival purposes.

I find Amazon S3 Glacier valuable for storing various documents like purchase orders, standard documents, and drawings. It complements my setup where the files are stored in S3, and the main application is hosted on EC2 containers.

In terms of improvement, I would like to see improved storage capacity and enhanced security features for better protection. The advantage of being on the cloud allows for scalability, so increasing storage as needed would be beneficial.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for a year.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as a perfect ten out of ten. We have approximately 50 users of the solution at our company.

The initial setup is straightforward and it takes less than an hour to deploy it. Deploying Amazon S3 Glacier is straightforward since it is pre-integrated within the cloud platform. There is no need for additional integration efforts, and it is user-friendly, and suitable for average maintenance.

It is more expensive compared to on-premises solutions. Amazon S3 Glacier might seem pricier over three years than on-premise servers, but it has perks like lower upfront costs and no need for internal remote engineers. If treated as an operational expense, the advantages often outweigh the long-term cost.

For those looking to start using Amazon AWS, my advice is to consider AWS Lightsail for a quick and easy deployment. Setting up an account is straightforward, and it is a hassle-free solution. Overall, I would rate Amazon S3 Glacier as a nine out of ten.

The solution is used for backup purposes. We had it for some of our customers for their static file needs a couple of years ago.

The product is very straightforward. It is the most feature-rich platform. The solution performs well.

The product’s pricing must be improved. It's one of the most pricey object storage solutions on the market.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is scalable. In theory, its scalability is limitless. The product is used by systems. We have implemented it for three to four customers a year ago.

The initial setup is very easy. It takes less than an hour to deploy the tool. To deploy it, we create an AWS account on the portal. Then, we create an object storage bucket, give some permissions to it, and make some configurations on the source platform. If it is a code-based integration, we must give an ARN into our coding platform. If it’s going to be a Veeam platform, we must provide the Veeam platform with a username and password in the configurations.

We pay a monthly license fee for the solution. We pay for what we use. Pricing is the biggest disadvantage of the solution.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We're a tech company, so we use a variety of solutions, but S3 Glacier is what we currently use for the database. 

We use it both internally for our own projects and our clients. We host some projects on Azure and AWS, depending on client requirements.

It's mostly used by enterprises for hosting various solutions.

We get free credits from Amazon, and we like the overall stability. We haven't had to rely heavily on their customer success teams, which is a good sign.

With hyperscalers like Amazon, things are generally pretty smooth. As long as the product is stable, billing is clear, and we don't have issues, we're happy.

Billing issues can be a nightmare. It's tough reaching the right person to get them sorted out.

I have been using this product for about three years. 

It is easy to scale. That's a major reason we use both Azure and AWS. They're very scalable.

We have around 35 end users using this in our company. 

When we have to reach out to them, it becomes an issue. They can improve, but we don't need them frequently anyway.

We don't get the right people right away. They connect us to someone who doesn't know, and then it goes in a loop, and we have to be very patient to find the person who can actually solve our problem.

Positive

We use Microsoft Azure services. But the usage depends on the client or the purpose. 

Some enterprises are typically on Azure, while others prefer AWS. We're cloud-native, so we don't differentiate between the two, but it depends on the client's needs.

My tech team handled it. It was a matter of hours, not days.

One person should be enough.

We have seen an ROI. That's why we're using it. We see value in the return; otherwise, we wouldn't continue.

Mainly on the cost side, It's very easy to use, which leads to cost synergies. That's how we look at it.

If it were cheaper, I'd be happier. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. 

It is a yearly basis license. There are some other services that are linked with it as well. 

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

We use the solution for long-term backups. We take database backups and synchronize them to Glacier after 30 days. We also use it as part of our disaster recovery.

We sync to S3 and transfer to Glacier. It is a slow system in terms of performance. Also, it's cheap. It takes several hours to retrieve data if you need something from it.

There's no storage limit, and the price is excellent.

Glacier could provide easy browsing.

I have been using Amazon S3 Glacier for five years.

I don't have to monitor the solution.

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

Only I am using this solution.

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

I've used the amazon support.

We have used Egnyte and switched to Amazon S3 Glacier because it is cheap.

The initial setup was easy. I set up a management plan to automatically move old files into Glacier. We already had backups going into S3. So, I configured the system to automatically transfer some of those backups to Glacier storage within minutes.

We did the setup of the solution in-house.

I rate the product’s pricing a one out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Considered whether to archive files before putting them in the cloud.

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

We use it for our products, mainly as a source for some data, like a type of S3 bucket.

It's mostly used for current product data, not archival data. We use it for things like customer demos, training for customers, and also storing large configuration files.

The reliability of storage is the main benefit.

The pricing is a bit expensive. There is room for improvement in costs.

I have been using it for a couple of years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is a very scalable solution.

There are around 50 end users using this solution. We do plan to increase the further usage.

The initial setup is straightforward once you get used to it. It's automated for us now, so in that sense, it's very easy.

We need about ten DevOps guys for the deployment. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution. 

I would suggest just go through thorough AWS training and some of the training courseification programs.

I work in a school. We have a lot of graphics, videos, pictures, and multimedia data. We use the solution for data backup.

The product is easy to use. The restoration is not as complicated as we thought it would be. Thankfully, there hasn't been a situation where we had to recover everything.

The stability must be improved.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a six or seven out of ten.

The scalability depends upon the product’s versions. Generally, the tool is scalable. Currently, we are backing up around 9 to 10 TB of our data.

The support is good. The support team is quite helpful.

We need the vendor’s support during the initial setup. The deployment took about five working days. We had to engage with the vendor and have multiple sessions. We scheduled the deployment and got it done.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. The pricing must be improved. The solution must provide discounts for the education sector.

I would recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We use S3 as a short-term backup, and we use the Glacier as a long retention backup for our customers. We also use Crosswork to orchestrate from on-prem to the cloud. For example, we had a customer who has certified remote offices, and they want to control the backup at these remote offices from the head office. We installed our own software, and we booked and supplied S3 pockets to each one. 

I like the price. If you compare Glacier to others, the prices in terms of what you store beyond retention are much lower. You would pay a lot more money to archive it online or on-premise storage because Glacier has been designed to keep content for longer retention. It will cost a lot of money if you keep it in online storage in your data center. 

The response times could be faster. When you are with Amazon and use Glacier, you expect a response time between four to seven hours to retrieve the data. People will want to keep the content for a longer time, but they want to make shorter windows for that. 

It will help if they make that according to the SLA, for example, SLA level 1, SLA level 2, and SLA level 3, and make a premium SLA for Glacier and make it one hour and 15 minutes to retrieve it. 

All this will enhance the utilization of Glacier for our client's content. IT people will think that even archive should be faster, but archive means delivery is faster. It should guarantee content integrity at a certain time when you need the information.

Amazon partner support is very good. You have different levels of support. There are options like standard and premium vendor support. Based on that, you have some of the business services like business support.

The implementation of Amazon S3 Glacier is straightforward. It is very nice. It is just a couple of steps. If the engineer understands the components, it is easy to integrate.

Amazon S3 Glacier is much cheaper than competing products.

You have to be aware of Glacier's performance. There is a delay in Glacier, and you will not have a response because you can archive it. If you bring files from the library, from the archive, the response time is between four to seven hours. When you fetch something from the archive, it will take time. If you want to make it faster, we keep the content on S3, and it will come instantly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Amazon S3 Glacier a nine.

We use it for archiving.

The pricing is low, and it's dedicated to archiving is valuable to us. 

So that's a good thing because you don't have to pay a lot when you don't use your data.

There is room for improvement in handling GDPR compliance better. GDPR is about personal data protection and retention. It would be great if S3 Glacier could handle compliance items related to this, especially with upcoming legislation like the California law, which restricts data storage time and allows users to request data deletion. 

Currently, if you're using Azure, you have to bring data back in a tiered process, which can be slow. If S3 Glacier could handle compliance more efficiently, it would add value.

Because GDPR is coming, and it will monitor data retention. In Quebec, we have Rule 25, which concerns data property and the ability to request data deletion. Handling this directly from Glacier would be a significant improvement.

The customer service and support were good. 

Positive

The price is fair. I would rate the pricing model a two out of ten, with one being the lowest price and ten being the highest price.

Maybe avoid reading data from S3 Glacier or processing data from there, as it can be very slow.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.