Amazon S3 Reviews

We are using Amazon S3 mostly for block storage.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are its storage capabilities, security, and integration.

Amazon S3 could improve by having more frequent updates.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately six years.

The solution is stable.

Amazon S3 is a highly scalable solution.

We have two clients using the solution.

The support from Amazon S3 is excellent. 

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

Positive

The setup of Amazon S3 was straightforward. The implementation process is quick.

We used an integrator for the deployment of the solution.

There is a license needed to use this solution and it is reasonably priced.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

I work as an integrator of Amazon S3

Normal file system storage is very limited when you want to store additional objects. The concept of S3 is to give you the option to have sharing from multiple users. They can share content among various users in a file system. It has the capacity to scale and to accommodate more files than a normal file system. This solution can really scale according to demand and you pay according to your consumption.

Whatever enhancement they could include in terms of object storage and limitations, would be an improvement. There is a five terabyte limitation size, and in today's world with the data size doubling all the time, anything extra would be helpful. We really need a very, very huge file system, a big data system to accommodate all this content. 

It is a scalable solution, the product has content encryption and nobody can access it. Amazon has very good security when it comes to securing the S3 buckets. You can keep the content secure and the user can have the encryption key and even Amazon doesn't have access to it. It's very secure. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you want to use it as a target for backup, you redirect the backup software to store data to it by using an API to talk to the S3 buckets. Depending on the application you want to deploy, integration is also easy. Amazon provides good documentation and if you have an IT background and go through the documentation, you can integrate.

Other companies are trying to reach them but they've been ahead of the game for a long time. As an object storage product and in comparison to what's available on the market, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

We haven't released the Amazon S3 platform in a production environment. It's more for prototyping and POC so far.

Normally we use it for the data dump. It's something similar to a data lake wherein we use it to obtain the data. 

The most valuable feature is the storage.

I would like to see translations or description context for the options. 

It is difficult for me as a consultant to explain the science, or the configuration processes, or why I am using this much power or the size to the customer. It takes some effort to describe how you got to that sizing.

We have some problems with connectivity. In my country, most of the issues we have are with stable connections rather than stable platforms.

In the next release, I think that it would be good to have wizards that would update into specific applications, for example, a one-touch configuration in Pagemaker. It would mean that you don't need to activate S3, and then have to do a configuration on the page. You would want a single wizard that would do all of the necessary applications.

Normally I work with on-premise solutions, then I started using Amazon S3 just over a year ago.

This solution is stable and I haven't had any issues with it slowing down.

There are many options, but there will be a learning curve to appropriately size one for a specific use case.

We have teams divided into application, web design, web technology, and cloud applications.

I haven't been in a situation where I have needed to contact technical support.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Sharing with other things that I have been doing, I was able to deploy this solution in one afternoon.

Azure is another solution that we were thinking of applying.

We have heard of Google Apps, but we haven't tried that solution.

You have to know specifically what it is being used for. 

One of the issues we face is that it is a developer's environment. 

In our country, the Philippines, people are often forced upon with brands such as Microsoft, Zadara, and even Oracle. 

Azure is something that is explored by developers. The onus is with the formal organization to get the people back in. 

I would rate this solution a fair eight out of ten. It does what I need it to do, but it is a developer's tool. It's not something that I have heard many people harp about.

We primarily use the solution in order to share static files among web applications and mobile applications.

The ability to have everything in the cloud is the most valuable aspect of the solution. 

It allows me to only pay for what I use. Therefore, the pricing model is very useful.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has been stable so far.

We've found the scalability to be good.

I don't really have any pain points with this product. There isn't really anything to complain about. It does what we need it to do.

Technical support could have a faster response time. They are a bit slow right now.

I've been using the solution for three or four years or so at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is fairly stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and its performance is good.

The scalability is good. If a company can expand it, it can do so with ease.

Mostly, we implement this solution for small businesses.

At this point, neither we nor our clients have any plans to increase the usage.

Technical support is okay. They aren't good or bad. They are somewhere in the middle. Our main issue is the fact that they take too long to answer questions. Sometimes you need to wait up to two days to get any kind of response from them. They need to provide answers in a more timely manner.

The initial setup is not difficult or overly complex. It's very straightforward and easy to implement. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment times vary according to the company and its requirements. It could take anywhere from days to weeks.

You only need one person to handle the implementation process. It doesn't take a big team or a lot of people.

We are an implementor and can implement the solution for clients if they need us to.

The pricing is very fair. It's actually pretty inexpensive. We only pay for what we use. We don't have to pay for anything else.

We did not evaluate another product before ultimately choosing this solution. We went immediately to Amazon.

We are implementors.

I would recommend the solution to other companies. it's a very flexible product. It's cheap. You pay for what you get. It's just a cloud. AWS has a really good cloud implementation. I could not compare it with any other -such as Azure or Google - as I have not tried any of those. Users who would like to look at other options should check out Gartner's Magic Quadrant. However, any company can go easily to AWS straight away and be sure that they're going to pay a good price for a good service.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for storage.

The most valuable features are unlimited storage, scalability, and performance.

The security model can be improved as it is a bit confusing.

The access speed could be faster.

I have been familiar with Amazon S3 for six years now.

I am always using the latest version because it is self-service, and you cannot choose the version you are using.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable solution.

I provide consulting services for this product and every customer we have is using it. Our clients are enterprise businesses.

I have used Amazon support for this product and I find the service to be good. We also try to provide for our clients.

The initial setup is easy, it's straightforward, and it only takes a few minutes to deploy.

I have experience with many cloud services and with several services through Amazon.

I would recommend this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to store the historical data of the customer. Additionally, we are creating JSON format data while running our application and we are pushing this JSON format data to the Amazon S3.

This solution is good at storing historical data and we were using it for other purposes.

When we need to find the queries there is no user interface, it is the only textual format that is bulky. If we need some data we will use Athena for queries and we will get results. When comparing this solution to others, such as DataDog, they provide a wonderful UI, and user-friendly dashboards, and many other features that this solution is lacking.

We have found that the query takes too much time to process and it is quite difficult to receive the data.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution scalable.

The initial setup was quite complex. We needed to create some endpoints but with a little effort everything turned out alright. Additionally, we use Kafka queues and we send them to the S3 bucket. With the help of shell scripts, we run one script and we receive the data from Kafka queue, topic by topic, and we send the data to the S3 bucket.

The cost of storage is cheap. However, the cost to have a better interface can get expensive. We are using Athena for this purpose and if we did some heavy queries the cost will start adding up. When the Athena query is running, it will scan the bucket and they charge for how many GBs we are going to scan. The function of scanning has a lot of costs attached to it, this is a negative point.

I have evaluated Datadog and Kibana and we are planning on moving away from Amazon S3 and S3 Athena because the other solutions provide the latest technology.

We should not use this solution for the purpose of the logs. We realized if we need to track the logs and a few other things we should use a good log platform which would have been better.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future but only for a specific set of purposes. We are moving away from S3 to a different solution, such as Datadog or Elasticsearch because 80% of the usage is only for storage purposes. We will keep on doing the same thing in the future. Only 20% of our usage we are planning to move from S3 to a log platform.

I would advise others if this solution fits the use case or expected usage for the end-user then I would recommend it. If they can afford everything that is involved, such as storage and usage fees, then it would be a good choice. They have to consider how frequently they want to access the data from the storage, how many heavy queries they want to run, and are they going to manipulate the data or retrieve the data. They should consider all these scenarios before they make the decision to implement the solution.

I rate Amazon S3an eight out of ten.

Speed, size, and security are the most valuable features.

This was the company’s first foray into storing data offsite. The old way of thinking was that this was too dangerous to contemplate and you can get hacked either way.

This solution, indirectly, allowed us to recover internal and expensive document storage and replace it with cheaper offline storage.

Capacity-wise, we’re looking at 200GB of transactional data in Redshift. More importantly, you have a lot of storage of other assets, some slow and some fast. These include document archives and web images. This is several years of documents of more than 500GB, and most of it will remain untouched.

That stuff ends up in S3 Glacier storage. It is not really that large in the grand scheme of things, but certainly does not warrant the use of expensive internal storage systems or hiding the data on backup tape somewhere.

The web interface was frustrating when dealing with large numbers of files. We ended up using an interface client (via FTP, I think) which also had its own issues.

How do you make it easy to manage 50K documents in one folder using a web interface? I guess some more advanced filtering and selecting capabilities would have been nice, but it was in the early days. It would only read about 120 files into the cache. If you wanted to remove 1000 out of 2000 documents, you had to continually repeat your actions.

This happened surprisingly regularly when you have a live data transfer that ships 100 files per cycle and does 20 cycles per hour. It could eventually delete them itself, but we didn’t have time to engineer that piece.

Amazon’s approach was to delete the old files after a certain number of days. That is money in the bank for them right there.

I have used this solution for three years.

There were no stability issues.

Technical support always met my expectations.

There were business intelligence solutions via the web. We had similar home-grown reporting applications running on in-house hardware for over 10 years prior, but this was directly impacting our ERP resources.

It was exceptionally simple to configure servers, although most of this was done by the boss.

Even though it appears cheap, be careful on how you use it. Optimizing early will save money spent on storage and resources long term, so make it part of the design process. The beauty is you can control it at a very fine level.

Follow the guidance. The documentation is excellent. Take the time to get it right.