Amazon S3 Reviews

The primary use case for Amazon S3 is as a storage service for structured and unstructured data. I use it for storing data for websites with different domains. My company and I use it internally for cloud-based services.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 include scalability, durability, reliability, security, access control, cost-effectiveness, performance, speed, data management, analytics, static website hosting, seamless integration with other AWS services, and budgeting features. 

I find the cost-effective models particularly suitable for our needs. The performance with high-speed data retrieval and support for large file uploads is crucial. Security measures like encryption, access controls, and the block public access feature are also important. 

Another useful feature is the MFA delete function that prevents accidental and malicious data deletions.

There is a limitation with the data upload size, such as the five terabytes restriction. I would like to see an increase in the data upload limit, similar to DynamoDB, where there is no data limit.

I have been working with Amazon S3 for more than three years.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten. There is zero latency or downtime.

Scalability is rated ten out of ten. The level of scalability allows storage to automatically scale on demand, without the need for manual intervention.

The technical support for Amazon S3 is rated ten out of ten. I have not faced any recent issues, and their response is always prompt and satisfactory.

Positive

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is very easy and is rated ten out of ten. It usually takes only five to ten minutes to set up, depending on the specific requirements and amount of data.

I am responsible for service deployment, primarily using EC2 instances and Amazon RDS for databases.

I am still learning about AI services like SageMaker and Amazon Recognition to potentially test with S3 in the future. 

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

We use Amazon S3 for data storage purposes. We use the stored data for restoration or backup when there is a data leakage in websites and mobile applications. For enterprise-level applications, the stored data is also used for data analytics, backup, recovery, etc.

The tool helps us with data backup storage of payment files and helps us avoid issues with clients when we miss the data. For instance, in the payment file of my Google client, you can find details of one-to-one transactions like the payment information on the file header, payment ID, payment client ID, group headers, etc. We get these details into the file format of ISO which is the accepted format at JP Morgan & Chase. Once we get the file format, we process it through S3.

In S3, we do the syncing process where everything is automated as per the business logic. The data is sent to S3 after the syncing process. S3 will evaluate the data and the format and store it for backup purposes. Whenever we miss a payment, we can just recover the history from the storage bucket. So it helps us manage the features, cost, and regulatory aspects.

I like the S3 Lambda access point and S3 management console which helps with the filtering and returning of data.

Many customers use this tool. We use it for enterprise application data where we store all cloud-native application production data. You can upload any amount of data and access it from anywhere to deploy the applications. However, the tool needs to improve its performance. Clients can reach more end users if the overall process is faster.

The solution can be a perfect tool if it can add more S3 storage classes and manage the authorized users to one bucket and give access to the storage usage and activity trends.

I have been using the solution for the past two years.

The solution’s stability can have a rating of eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten. Scalability depends on the size of the data which can be zero bytes to five TB which is the largest.

I would rate the customer service and support a nine out ten. 

Positive

AWS S3’s setup is not complex, and in fact, manageable. The number of people required for deployment depends on the data. If it is a Single Page Application with single-page data, then one person is enough for the deployment. However, if there are payment files involved, then you need around three to four people in the team to deploy it on the cloud.

There is ROI with the use of the tool. Organizations can benefit from the tool with their business logic.

The tool is not too expensive considering the various pros.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I am not sure about the solution’s version. It should be either four or five. I have practical knowledge of the tool like its implementation. We store data on the S3 bucket and take it to present to the database. The tool is manageable and maintainable by anyone for their work.

This is a perfect tool for data storage. It is good to use S3 as a storage bucket for data.

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.

I use Amazon S3 mostly to store files. Instead of storing files in a blob, I store them in Amazon S3 and give the reference to my database. At any point in time, if I want to process the files, I get them from Amazon and process them.

Amazon S3 is scalable and available. It's particularly useful for archiving data; I can configure it to keep files for six months before archiving them to Glacier. This flexibility in retrieving data or storing it makes it valuable.

Sometimes, there is latency in getting data, especially if the file size is large. This could be improved.

I have been using Amazon S3 for about five years.

There is no need to maintain Amazon S3, although latency can occur when retrieving large files.

Amazon S3 is scalable.

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

Positive

Since S3 is cloud-based, the initial setup is very straightforward, without any installation required.

S3 is a pay-as-you-go service. I pay based on the data volume I am using.

I rate Amazon S3 overall ten points out of ten. 

For handling data retrieval and access management in S3, I use IAMs to specify who can access data and what actions they can perform. One potential drawback is related to the naming of the S3 buckets. Bucket names are global, not local, which means if someone else attempts to access a bucket with the same name, I could be charged for their access attempt.

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 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.