Amazon S3 Reviews

We use Amazon S3 for storing images and documents. We use the solution for all file formats, and Amazon S3 gives us back URLs rendered on our end users' laptops.

My company uses Amazon S3 by default for every single project. I like that you can use it for storing different file formats.

Amazon S3 is also the easiest to use compared to other solutions.

The pricing for Amazon S3 needs improvement.

Another area for improvement is the file size change because it has some limitations that require more time for rendering, especially if you're not merely uploading a file, but reviewing that file, too. It takes some time to receive the file back. In the downloaded format, the file gets compressed.

We have been using Amazon S3 for almost five years on many projects.

The stability of Amazon S3 could be better. Though it's better than Google stability-wise, the rendering needs improvement.

There's no complaint about the scalability of Amazon S3 because it's more of a pay-as-you-go solution. You have to pay when you exhaust your storage, and the cost is a little higher, but there's no issue scaling the solution.

Amazon S3 customer support is good. The support team sometimes waives the technical consultation fee, unlike Microsoft Azure and GCP, which charge you for every consultation, even when you try to solve the issue or DIY it.

Sometimes, Amazon S3 support gets delayed, but Amazon has great engineers who come up with solutions to your issues rather than wasting time.

Amazon S3 has a straightforward setup. It's simple because it's just a plug-in, so it takes little time to set up.

It only takes two hours to set up Amazon S3. You use the Chrome browser on your phone. It's as easy as that, so every developer knows how to do it. You deploy Amazon S3 manually. It's a simple process. You sign up, take a storage folder, and then link the folder to your project. It'll take two hours, and that's it.

The cost of Amazon S3 could be better. The solution needs to be less costly. As the number of data increases, you'll pay more for Amazon S3. It's around $200, which is okay, but my company uses it less often. For a file storage solution, Amazon S3 is expensive, though it would still depend on the project. It's more of the storage charge that needs to be lowered. Usually, Amazon gives you up to five TB free. Suppose Amazon charges you $200, that's fine, but it doesn't feel very justifiable, though there's no question in terms of the abilities of Amazon S3.

There's no extra cost for Amazon S3 except for personal storage.

My company has hundreds of customers using Amazon S3.

I recommend Amazon S3 to others because Amazon has an IT cloud-first approach. It has microservices that could benefit your organization because, development-wise, it's outstanding. It has more reliability and stability. Amazon S3 boosts performance, which saves you time. Though it comes with a premium price, with the time saved, the solution can help grow your business faster. Before you even start using Amazon S3, I recommend seeing the available microservices and looking into what Amazon is trying to improvise and build so that you can use it for new projects and save on time and cost.

My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten, but if the rendering speed, stability, and performance based on file size are better, I could give the solution a higher score.

I am using Amazon S3 for our retail portal sites and data scientist users are using it for analytics and Athena.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the global availability, resiliency, and ease of access control.

Amazon S3 could improve the performance reports. It would be a benefit if they were more comprehensive.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three years.

Amazon S3 stable is very high.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is very good.

We have approximately eight to 10 concurrent users using this solution.

The technical support is good.

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

I previously used Blob Storage in Microsoft Azure. We had a multi-cloud strategy, and we had both solutions available to use. For some projects, we used Amazon S3, and for the others depending on what services they needed to use, we used Microsoft Azure. We got Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure for different projects.

Amazon S3's initial setup is easy, and simple to work with.

I rate the setup of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

Once Amazon S3 is set up, the developers use it for doing analytics and there isn't much in the way of ongoing maintenance.

We have received a return on investment using Amazon S3, we find it inexpensive.

Amazon S3 is straightforward, scalable, and globally available and there are some good security features for making sure control over access is taken care of. I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon S3 primarily as a repository for storing objects such as images and files. It serves as a storage solution where we can efficiently save and manage the data we collect.

Lifecycle policies in Amazon S3 is an important feature because they help manage transitions effectively. We can monitor how frequently objects are accessed and transition them to more cost-effective storage tiers. Additionally, the security architecture, including access control policies, is crucial for protecting our data. These three features—lifecycle management, cost-effective storage transitions, and robust security

From a pricing perspective, there’s still room for improvement, especially for smaller or startup entities that are very cost-conscious. If Amazon could repackage their S3 products to be more affordable and appealing for these smaller users, it could attract more customers, particularly at the lower end of the market. 

You can easily add more space as needed, and you can leverage the available metrics to set up alerts for when utilization reaches certain thresholds. It is highly scalable.

Our internal staff population exceeds one hundred. However, the number of clients accessing the application has surpassed ten thousand and continues to grow.

There are occasional support issues where parts of the application might misbehave, often after scheduled upgrades. When this happens, we need to raise a support ticket. However, the team has been very agile in addressing these issues and quickly resolving them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I have a DevOps team that handles the setup and management tasks. By the time I joined, a lot of the S3 configurations were already in place. For the few instances where we needed to set up S3, it involved just a few clicks. As the Chief Technical Officer, I focus on architecting solutions and providing guidance, while the DevOps team implements them. Overall, the process has been seamless.

For disaster recovery, we're just starting to implement our strategy. Amazon fulfills its part of the shared responsibility model by providing highly available infrastructure, including data redundancy and regional instance deployment. Their infrastructure is designed to support high availability, which aligns with their disaster recovery stipulations. We’re still in the process of testing our own disaster recovery plans, including running full-scale disaster scenarios to ensure we meet our recovery time objectives (MTTR) and recovery point objectives (MTTD). Although we haven't experienced any outages or data loss since starting operations, we are content with Amazon's disaster recovery infrastructure and will continue to build and test our own processes at our own pace.

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

We use the solution to store BLOB data, analytical data, and large files.

We use S3 for archiving. We store data for the long term because it is very cheap.

The most valuable feature of the product is storage classes. Once we store data in S3, it will be stored in different storage classes as per our needs.

The UI should be more user-friendly. I rate the UI a five out of ten. The solution must improve its UI.

I have been using the solution for four years.

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

Since the solution is used for data storage, it is not scalable. Its availability is very good. I rate the availability a ten out of ten.

It is very easy to create a bucket in S3. The option to create buckets is available to the users right when they open the S3 console. We can just create a bucket and start using it.

We definitely see an ROI on the solution. We can store terabytes and zettabytes of data in S3. We pay very less for it.

The product has one of the best pricing in the market. It is very cost-efficient. The cost depends on the data we access. If we access a particular data regularly, we must pay for it. If we know that we will need the data after three to five years, we can store it in the archives, which will cost us less.

The product has no specific version. We can create buckets and use them. It is a data storage service like Google Drive. I have not used all the features of the product yet. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon s3 to store objects like data in my environment.

In one of my previous environments, I was brought in to help with the challenges they were facing resulting from a data breach in the S3 bucket. What I noticed in that environment was that every user had full access into their S3 bucket, and accidentally deleted data without a trace.

They did not know how some of their data was missing. One of the first services I suggested was enforcing access control by applying IM best practices, such as granting list privilege permission to our users to avoid overpowering them. I created a single group and then applied specific permissions to that group.

All users added to that group were able to inherit the same permission and privileges. Versioning was enabled which keeps multiple variant of objects in the same bucket and also safeguards against accidental deletions. I also enabled multi-factor authentication which prevented accidental bug deletion by requiring the user who initiate the delete action to prove physical possession of an MFA device with an MFA code. 

The versioning of this solution for accidental deletion has been most valuable. 

You need to fully understand the solution's best practices to get the most out of its security features. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We have seen a return on investment with S3.

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten. Pricing depends on a particular class where you want save your objects. There are different classes when it comes to storage in S3.

I would advise others that this is a scalable solution that offers comprehensive security. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

Our company uses the solution for backups, data pumps, files, and logs. Our projects connect to the solution rather than individual users connecting to it. 

The solution is within the Amazon architecture so it easily connects with the cloud, hardware, or other services to move data. We do not need to connect to direct services to download data. 

The solution requires you to buy and use Amazon services. 

The solution could be more auto functional. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The stability is good so I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. It is easy to add gigabytes or more users and is more a question of budget. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The setup is very easy. Every junior Dev Ops can set up the solution and use data storage. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

There is no deployment because it is a data storage solution. 

The solution is very inexpensive at 50 cents per gigabyte, per month. 

Some packages or discounts are available. Big companies can use the solution for free. 

You can use the solution for projects that are within the Amazon architecture. 

You cannot use the solution if you have your own services or data centers because it is dependent on the Amazon architecture. 

If you have a service such as Azure in Amazon, then you can use the stream but not the solution directly. 

The solution is great for data and cloud storage. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten.  

I use the solution in my company for different purposes. Currently, we just store some data there, like the backups we store or data that is not regularly accessed. We mostly use the tool to store data. It is actually for object storage, so too many objects we store in it.

With Amazon S3, we can manage everything through GUI as well as the command line interface, which is a good thing. Using versioning in S3 buckets is a good feature.

The tool's speed is comparatively low, especially considering that there are some other services where we can store data, like EBS. The speed is a little slower in Amazon S3. I don't know the solution for that, but Amazon can add some features to improve its speed.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three to four years. I am just a user of the tool.

If we have critical data, we store it in multiple regions. The cloud provides multiple regions or multiple easy options. The tool does not cause much downtime.

I work as a DevOps SRE engineer, along with five more members of my team, and we all use Amazon S3.

My company contacts the tool's support for billing-related issues. My company does not regularly contact the tool's support team. Most of the things related to the tool are available in the document.

The product's deployment phase is easy. We can do it using the command line interface and codes, Terraform, or some scripts. You can use the consoles as well for easy understanding.

We can manage the S3 buckets based on the requirements. There are different categories available, like reducing it if we don't have enough money to store it in multiple locations. Different standards, such as different S3 options, are available. One can manage the price of the tool. The tool is worth the money if we want to store the data in Amazon S3. We are storing things in Amazon S3 or wherever there is a remote cloud server so that you can access the data anywhere in the world. If your data needs to be accessed from anywhere in the world, you can store it on your local drive. You can set up a local system, but storing it in Amazon S3 means you can access it all over the world. There is no need for much configuration. The cloud providers provide a pay-as-you-use model. There is no need to pay for any setups. Based on data size, upload, and download requests, some money gets charged. It is easy to control pricing on the cloud. There is no need to have a deep knowledge of setting up the servers in the data center or in a local environment.

Firstly, one should try using the Amazon or AWS console itself. You can move the mouse around and find where the configuration things are there, how to create buckets, versioning, and other things, like downloading, uploading, and everything else. Learn the console and its basics. Secondly, you can move to the command line interface. With the command line interface, we can easily manage available AWS commands or AWS CLI options. Later, we can move to scripting. Using scripts, we can do the uploads, downloads, and changes, and all those things.

I believe it is easier to learn the tool than to learn the administrative skills needed to set up the servers or networks for the data configurations. It is a much more advanced task. Setting up Amazon S3 or using a cloud service is the easiest thing you can learn. You will get the tool's documents everywhere, explaining how to use the tool. Anyone, including non-technical people, can learn to use Amazon S3 and other cloud services.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We have been using Amazon S3 to store some execution results. I am from a testing background. We use the solution to store execution results and whatever evidence we generate.

The solution's most valuable feature is its security, as it does not provide public access.

The solution could be cheaper. EC2 has a feature called get instant screenshot. It would be good if Amazon S3 had an API to get screenshots or video streaming continuously. There are cases where we want to see what is happening in real-time instead of connecting to Amazon EC2. It would be good if we could watch it like a video stream.

I have been using Amazon S3 for almost five years.

We have seen some downtime in the past four to five years, but it was nothing major. We were sometimes unable to launch the machines through code. We do not have a major production environment. We use it mostly for scenario testing, so the stability issue was okay for us. However, it would not be good if the tool went down when a person was deploying it.

There should be a reason or a log for the solution's downtime. When we make an API call, like SDK, it should throw an error or some information so that we know what exactly happened.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

We don't use the solution for deployment. We use it to execute the scripts on virtual machines. We have a platform built where we click on something, and then the virtual machines get launched automatically based on a certain AMI image. It takes a lot of time, almost 15 to 20 minutes, to start the machine.

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