Amazon S3 Reviews

I'm a consultant who provides services for companies of various sizes here in South Africa. Our company is still small, with only about 20 clients. I use S3 for hosting my websites and other storage services. S3 can be used for static and dynamic websites as well as file storage. In terms of dynamic websites, I use S3 in addition to other technologies in a computerless environment. In other words, I don't need a virtual machine to have a dynamic website hosted on Amazon Web Services.

E3's most valuable feature is CloudFront.

You need to do some things to make the files and updates immediately accessible. If you don't know those steps, you will wait forever for your updates to take effect or be seen by the public.

That is the only area where a newcomer might get frustrated with hosting on S3. The files are available immediately when they are first deployed, but it takes some time when they make changes if you don't understand the simple procedure you need to follow for it to happen immediately.

The process needed to show updates immediately is a problem. You have to go somewhere to delete whatever is propagated and restart the propagation somehow. That is the only issue that I think they could fix with hosting on S3 as far as websites are concerned.

I would also like S3 to have the ability to do dynamic websites without the need to do reconfigurations outside of S3. You should be able to switch on dynamic websites in S3, and then it works. I shouldn't need to go elsewhere within Amazon Web Services to get a dynamic website to work.

I've been using S3 for about three years 

It's a cloud service, so our scalability is good. I haven't had any issues. At the same time, I haven't had a situation where a client needed to expand the footprint of their site tremendously. I don't have massive clients like Netflix.

I was never in a position where I needed to request AWS tech support.

I've also used Azure's tool, and S3 is far more stable I haven't seen the same issues on AWS that I'm having on Azure. Amazon CloudFront is way faster. The websites are loading way faster than when you do it on Azure CDN.

Another advantage of S3 over CDN is the fact that I can deploy my websites on Amazon S3 with the root domain and the sub-domain loading the website. When using CDN, you cannot load the website with the root domain.

In the beginning, it wasn't easy. S3 was a little cumbersome when I started using it. With updates, it became easier to set up static websites. However, deploying dynamic websites in S3 is still difficult. You need to take notes on what you're doing so you can do the next dynamic website. 

The deployment is quite fast. You upload files, and that's it.

There a no license fees. E3 is a cloud service, and you pay as you go. Your encryption licenses are free, so you only pay for the storage you're using. It's extremely inexpensive. 

I rate Amazon S3 10 out of 10. S3 is highly cost-effective, so I would definitely recommend it.

We use Amazon S3 for storing documents and hosting website content.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the performance and hibernation data options. Additionally, there is a feature that provides faster website access that is helpful.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately two years.

My advice to others is for them to read a lot of articles on the internet as much as possible. There is a lot of information available on the internet.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We have 10 people using the solution in my organization.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. We have not used a large amount of data to fully test the capabilities of the scalability. However, it worked well for our needs.

We have used the support from Amazon S3. The support is expensive and could be reduced.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward. However, understanding the policies for the first time can take some time to figure out.

The time it takes for the deployment of the solution depends on many factors. The process can be quick.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house. There are a lot of articles and documentation available for implementation.

The cost of Amazon S3 is low. For R & D purposes there is a free option available. There is a license needed to use the solution.

I have been satisfied with the storage overall price.

Amazon S3 is 99.99 percent stable. We have never had an issue.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for the storage of large amounts of data.

It's a public cloud deployment model that anyone can deploy.

There is no need to upgrade as they don't have versions, it's a managed service, it's hybrid. There are changes that we make internally. It's Amazon S3.

The most valuable features are the high availability, high performance, IAM access control, and server-side encryption.

Some of the areas that could be improved are the dashboard, and to have a richer functionality.

Because there are so many services offered by Amazon, they can do anything. If we were to add anything it wouldn't be anything inside of it, but services on top of it. 

There is a concern with security. In one of our main use cases, we prescreen, but we have to create a gateway or layer on top of it to access the data in that particular case. Because the user accesses the data, they to be authenticated before doing so. 

It indicates that the users of our systems need to gain access to this data. Amazon allows access with this mechanism called Presigned URL. 

We need to share files, so we upload the file and request a link from Amazon, which allows you to share with anyone. The link is signed, which is the reason it is called Presigned. However, this sign is not compliant with internet regulations.

In our company, we are concerned with privacy regulations. In the United States, there is a law and regulation that is called HIPPA. It's a regulation on how to keep patients' data private and how to protect it. Amazon S3 is eligible for HIPPA compliance, but not with the Presigned URL.

This is very important and because we cannot use the Presigned URL, we have to build the layer on top of Amazon S3. As a result of having to do this, we lose performance, availability, and we lose some benefits of Amazon S3.

A feature that should be included is to find and provide a HIPPA compliant solution for the Presigned URL.

This a stable solution. We are not aware of any technical issues.

We are a large company and everyone uses this solution. Approximately one hundred users in different areas made up of developers and administrators.

While we have a small technical team, there is almost no maintenance with this solution. It's fully managed.

This solution is scalable.

Technical support is very good. 

They are very professional and they respond quickly. If they don't have a solution, they will contact they development team in Amazon and provide you with a detailed response with a solution to resolve the issue. 

They are very thorough and I really appreciated it. They helped me.

I am more than satisfied with the support and would recommend using the support.

We have not used any previous cloud-based solutions.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The download is very easy and can be used in seconds.

I performed the implementation of this solution.

This solution has reasonable pricing and a low cost.

We didn't evaluate other options. Amazon accounts are straightforward. 

There is always a choice on whether or not you will use the cloud. If you make the choice to use the cloud then you can choose if you are just using Google or Microsoft. When you already have an account with Amazon, your choice is Amazon S3.

There are other solutions, but for us the choice to use Amazon S3 was clear.

It's difficult to offer advice as it depends on the use case and what this solution is intended for.

This solution is managed fully, and there is no need for upgrades or anything. It's cloud-based. If you just Gmail, you don't upgrade Gmail.

I would recommend this solution for companies of any size. It's good for starting up because you only pay for what you use. It's internet-capable, making it good for any company.

I would rate this solution a ten 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.

Amazon S3 can be used for central storage, backup, log, and storage.

The reliability that Amazon S3 has provided has improved organizations.

Amazon S3 needs to simplify the backup features.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately 10 years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good.

The support from Amazon S3 has been knowledgable and responsive.

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

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is easy, it can be done in less than one day.

We handle the implementation of Amazon S3. We have approximately 40 people that are able to do it.

It has been difficult for us to determine ROI.

The license of Amazon S3 is based on volume, capacity, and time. The overall price of the solution could improve. The support has to be added if you want it at an additional cost.

My advice to others is to pay attention to the backups and copies in Snapshots.

I rate Amazon S3 a seven 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.

We use Amazon S3 to store source files. We load the data we ingest from the source system into the solution, which is then consumed on Snowflake.

Amazon S3 is very flexible and provides high storage.

No direct connector is available to connect Amazon S3 with other tools like MicroStrategy. So, I have to use a third party and connect to it.

I have been using Amazon S3 for three years.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

Around 50 users from the infrastructure team are using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. Although the support team's response time is a little slow, everything else is fine, and they are resolving our issues.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is comparatively difficult because only someone with cloud knowledge can use Amazon S3.

Amazon S3 works on a pay-as-you-go model, and it is worth the money if used to its potential.

The solution is cost-effective because it is based on a pay-as-you-go model, where I can purchase and use it according to my needs.

Our organization chose Amazon S3 because of its scalability, security, and encryption. Since the solution is used for storage, it provides a higher transfer rate to transfer files from one location to another.

Amazon S3 is a good choice for someone with a lot of files and needs a lot of storage with easy computation, scalability, and backups.

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

Most people who need to store files usually turn to Amazon S3. The use case for this is not only for me but for anyone building technology who needs to store files.

Amazon S3 helps to store data, such as Excel, audio, and video.

An important feature of the Amazon S3's system is that it offers encryption while the files are at rest. This is crucial in ensuring the security of the files being restored and addressing potential security risks. That's what I would emphasize.

The cost of the solution should be reduced.

I have been using Amazon S3 for a long time.

I rate the stability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

I rate the scalability of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

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

Neutral

The implementation of Amazon S3 was easy.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

I have received a return on investment using Amazon S3.

The price of Amazon S3 should be reduced.

I rate the price of Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

I did not evaluate other solutions before choosing Amazon S3.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.