Amazon S3 Reviews

We use the solution to put our static web pages on the backend servers when we use Cloudfront if a transformation is required. When a request reaches Cloudfront, we have to mask some information in the response by transporting it.

The solution masks or transforms the request so the backend can understand them. For example, We have a proxy server in between the NGINX engine, and when a request hits the NGINX engine, it has a different format. The NGINX engine converts and secures the information before hitting the Cloudfront. We use the Lambda function which is a Python program so the code body stays in the Amazon S3 bucket and when a response is returned from the backend server we can mask some of the information, keeping only the required information for the end response.

I also use Amazon S3 for batch processing. Two gigabytes is a lot of data, especially if we are adding or updating information. If we have a Java application, it can take a long time to process two gigabytes of data. I split the data into multiple 50 or 30-MB files to make it easier to process.  I created a manifest file that specified which rows belonged to which files. Then I used the solutions batch processing with Lambda to create a pipeline that performs batch operations.

I use the solution for life cycle management. The information goes from the standard storage to the infrequent, and after 30 days it is moved to the glacier.

Amazon S3 provides us with a ready-made server. We have the option to secure our case from public access, We can give access to the targeted audiences only with the signed page and signed requests. A signed request is also provided to the target audience so that they can use the link for requesting the object to be seen by the Amazon S3 bucket. We have a cloud formation template that we restored into Amazon S3 and during the launch of the AWS services, we only needed to execute the command from the Amazon S3 bucket. With the solution, we can simply provide our resources and files to Amazon for the code references using Lambda functions instead of keeping tiny scripts in the Amazon S3 bucket to restore codes.

The integration with Cloudfront helps in fetching the static phase and default phases in case our actual service is down. Instead of our customers receiving a response that something is happening in the background and trying the site later, we can redirect our page from one page to another, using the Amazon S3 bucket links in Cloudfront.

I would like a batch downloading option added to the AWS console. If we have a bucket in Amazon S3 and for example, we have 50 files that we want to download locally on our system, we need to download them one by one. We can batch-download the files with the command, but from the AWS console, we cannot select all the files and download them into a folder. 

An option to delete multiple files at one time would be a nice feature to be added to the AWS console because we currently have to specify the individual file names. For example, if five files are present, and we want to delete them, then each file name has to be entered separately.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is extremely stable. I give the stability ten out of ten.

The solution is scaled automatically because it is cloud-based. Whatever our demand is the solution has no limitations or restrictions. 

I give scalability ten out of ten.

We have only had the need for technical support three times using the solution and they were not able to resolve two of the issues because they were not supported by them. In most cases, we are able to resolve the issues using the information found on forums.

Neutral

Previously, we used our local hard disc and the local remote service. We were facing a lot of problems that cloud solutions have solved, like availability, and down servers or IP not reachable. 

The initial setup is straightforward. At the time of our deployment, we had one issue with our targeted audience not being able to access specific pages even after we followed the guidelines and video tutorials from AWS. This was three years ago and has probably been addressed. 

The deployment only takes a few minutes depending on the context. We just run our command from either the CLI or the AWS console and the smart configuration is complete.

Most of the time we work with our customers and they provide us with their network settings and all the AWS services that will be hosted in their network. Once a customer has created their accounts, and has applied their security and network settings, they provide us with the working space and using that information, we can deploy Amazon S3 to their network.

There is a 70 percent return on investment when transferring from external storage to Amazon S3.

The cost is based on the amount of storage required and if we exceed the data transfer rate across regions.

If we use an external encryption key and not the one included by AWS, the data transfer between the key server and our Amazon S3 server will incur a charge.

I give the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is a web service that is hosted on the cloud only. Even if we tried to deploy it on-premise, we couldn't because AWS has the outpost service. Outposts are a way to create an AWS cloud environment locally, but some services are not available. S3 is a regional service and has to be serverless. 

Amazon S3 doesn't require any maintenance except perhaps one or two people for identity access management and a way to validate users.

All of our AWS developers use Amazon S3 including our migration people who have to take a backup using the solution for all the projects.

Amazon S3 is the perfect service for all applications for personal use. Anyone can use this solution regardless of their location with an AWS user account. The solution offers good web service and is perfect for anyone that wants to set up a minimal startup static web page for information purposes easily.

We use S3 buckets to store logs from the application side. The logs stay on the server for seven days. After that, we transfer them to the S3 bucket, depending on the application, and the logs help us correctly troubleshoot problems. 

We can also host web apps in the historical bug bucket. If you have a domain name from Route 53, you can create a bug bucket over there and whatever is in the web applications folder. About 40 people at my company use S3. 

You don't have to specify your clone, availability clone, or your locations. Everything's over there. They have a receipt for the instance where we have to select the exact location of what we are clicking. The S3 storage capacity is high, and the price is reasonable. 

The free web and DB hosting could be improved. It could be faster when you download huge files from the S3 bucket to your local system. If the S3 bucket availability and performance could be improved, we would consider hosting our database over there. 

We have worked with AWS for two or three years. 

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10 for stability. 

We usually don't need much help unless we experience some technical glitches. Amazon has helped us in those instances.

Positive

You can deploy the solution in under 10 minutes. 

The price is based on the size of your files and how long they will be retained. If you want something like a grade 2 segment and 10 GB of data transfers, it's around $0.5. 

We use S3 because all of our applications are on AWS. We have to use everything on the same cloud platform. The cost will be too high if you need to configure things to work across multiple cloud providers. It's highly complicated and expensive to set up cross-routing.  

I rate Amazon S3 eight out of 10. It's highly stable, scalable, and cost-effective. I recommend S3 depending on the customer's requirements. It's good if you need to store a large amount of read-only data. It isn't for block storage that you need to edit, but it's good for storing application logs. 

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.

Amazon S3 is used for storage service. It's designed for 99.9% durability; hence, our data is highly protected against failures.

The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 is the data transfer acceleration because it can enable fast, easy, and secure data transfer.

The solution's cost should be improved.

The solution's performance needs to increase for small objects. Amazon S3 is excellent for large projects, but its performance can be comparatively slower for fewer small objects.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

Around 2,000 to 3,000 users use Amazon S3 in our organization.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

While storing data in Amazon S3 is relatively inexpensive, there are costs associated with retrieving or transferring data across continents. Connecting Amazon S3 with real-time applications can increase data retrieval costs.

Amazon S3 is deployed on-cloud in our organization. Our company decided to use Amazon S3 because of its global availability. AWS has multiple data centers around the world.

If you're using the public cloud, using Amazon S3 combined with Amazon S3 Glacier is correct. The data will be stored in Amazon S3 storage, and the cost will increase. Instead of keeping the data in Amazon S3, putting the archive file in Amazon S3 Glacier is better.

Overall, I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

We have multiple use cases for Amazon S3. We use Amazon S3 for storing static data and as a static site load balancer.

Amazon S3 could improve the load balancers. They are very basic compared to other solutions in the industry, such as F5. It has to be able to be analyzed up to a certain level. 

The basic features need some improvement, users should not have to use any third-party solutions, Amazon S3 should provide those particular features. The feature at present does not suffice most of the requirements of an enterprise-class organization.

The security could improve in Amazon S3. I am not seeing any value in the solution in security.

I have been using Amazon S3 for more than two and a half years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. However, it could be changed to make it much better than it is today.

We have approximately 25 projects that are using this solution.

We have 24/h support from Amazon S3 and their support has been very good. We have had quick response times. Within two to three days our issue gets resolved.

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

Positive

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is of a medium level of difficulty. It's not easy or difficult. There are certain things that need to change from a documentation perspective, or from an ease of use perspective. The configuration needs to be more user-friendly. The full deployment of Amazon S3 took approximately 15 days.

We did the implementation of Amazon S3 in-house.

There is a license to use Amazon S3.

Before doing any project we have criteria sheets to follow, we evaluate any solution on-premise or on the cloud. We compare all the cloud solutions, such as Oracle, Azure, and GCP, and whichever solution we find better for our requirement, we design a solution using it.

Our main corporate website is posted on Amazon S3 and our evaluations determined Amazon S3 was the best solution for our use case. This is why we choose it.

My advice to others is Amazon S3 is a good solution. However, it depends on the use case that you have. This will determine if this solution is the best fit or if another solution would be better. The requirements of your use case have to be met.

I rate Amazon S3 an eight 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.

Our company uses the solution to store data from our analyses. More than 90% of our employees use the solution because our whole system and services are on the cloud. 

The solution and all AWS products have improved our productivity because the infrastructure is always available. You just pull a service and start using it. 

The infrastructure is always available so use can start using services immediately. 

The solution is easy to use for anyone with minimal technical knowledge. 

There are some scalability limitations. 

I have been using the solution for awhile. 

The solution is stable with no issues. 

We know there are some scalability limitations but we have not yet reached them. 

We previously used an on-premises solution. 

The setup is easy but it depends on what you would like to handle. There are different policies and selections but all of it is definitely easy. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is very simple and easy to use. It is pretty much the same as CloudWatch in that regard. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.