Amazon S3 Reviews

I use Amazon S3 for storing objects, like files and documents. It is particularly valuable for personal projects where some of the files are stored there.

Your data is secured, and you don't have issues with running out of storage. It provides a positive impact on operations.

One of the benefits is being a global service, so it can be accessed from anywhere. From a features perspective, the ability to catalog data is beneficial. 

It automatically moves data that is not frequently accessed to a less expensive archive over a set period, which is amazing. Its stability and scalability are also impressive, as it allows for increased storage space according to demand. I've never had any stability issues with S3.

Sometimes it's difficult to set it up, such as when naming your bucket. The naming conventions require unique global names, which can be cumbersome. An improvement could be associating the naming with personal accounts, allowing more familiar or desired names without conflicting with global conventions.

It's getting to about three years now.

Amazon S3 is very stable, and I have never had any performance issues.

Amazon S3 is scalable, allowing increased or decreased storage space as needed.

I've not interacted with AWS technical support, however, I have aided my colleagues in navigating specific setups and processes in S3.

Positive

The initial setup for Amazon S3 was easy and straightforward for me. When launching an S3 bucket and uploading files, there wasn't any significant challenge. 

However, setting up a static website using an S3 bucket requires familiarity with the environment.

I've not really supported anyone apart from aiding colleagues in setup issues.

I am aware Amazon S3 has different pricing models based on your needs. I've used the free tier and haven't been charged yet.

Before using Amazon S3, understand what you aim to store or achieve. It is particularly suited for hosting static websites. Your data will be secure, and you can access it whenever needed without worry.

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.

My primary use case for Amazon S3 includes using it for backups and deploying a website on an S3 bucket. Additionally, for my organization, it is used to deploy websites and leverage its architecture for deploying applications.

Amazon S3 has been beneficial because it is cost-effective and simplifies my data management through its life cycle policy, which automatically manages data I no longer need.

The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 for me is static deployment; it doesn't charge much, and I can integrate CloudFront for DNS and routing. It is very useful and affordable. 

Another valuable feature is versioning, which is critical for data management, allowing data recovery. Moreover, the life cycle policy feature is useful as it automatically manages data, making storage efficient.

The service could improve by offering mobile backups, which would be great since using Google Backup is costly. The complexity of the initial setup due to partitioning data over five GB could also be simplified.

I have been working with Amazon S3 for three months.

Amazon S3 is very stable. I don't worry about data stored in the S3 bucket as it's safe.

Amazon S3's automatic scaling has benefited me, as I don't need to plan storage requirements. I rate scalability as eight out of ten.

I haven't used the technical support team yet, as I have never required it.

Before Amazon S3, I used Google Backup and on-premises infrastructure. I switched due to the cost-effectiveness, scalability, and stability of Amazon S3.

The initial setup was a bit hectic. Uploading data only allows for five GB chunks, creating challenges. Another difficult aspect was managing bucket access policies, which have multiple layers, complicating the setup further.

In my organization, we have one person handling the maintenance of Amazon S3. Implementation involves understanding client architecture, developing cloud architecture, and ensuring security with future requirements.

I don't need to buy infrastructure hardware for backups, which is quite useful and has benefited me.

I rate the pricing as six out of ten. It is somewhat justified due to the benefits, but there is room for reconsideration.

I did not evaluate other options; Amazon S3 was my first choice and currently suits my needs.

New users should not store sensitive data on Amazon S3. Overall, I rate Amazon S3 an eight 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.

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.

We are using the solution to host our website and manage the database.

We have an online portal, and we are providing services to customers. We need to maintain an elastic database storage, along with security features. The solution’s functionality and accessibility are valuable to us. It's geared towards users. It makes things simple. The product is easy to use.

The product should enable users to create their own shortcuts. It should allow more customization. Users should be able to place their shortcuts on the dashboard. It will make things easier.

I have been using the solution for a year.

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

The product is scalable. We have over 50 users online at any given point. We can increase it as we need.

The setup is straightforward. We have a team of developers. They are very happy with the tool. The deployment did not take much effort. The product is cloud-based. We have six developers and engineers in our technical team.

Everything is housed in one place, so it is all easily accessible. The scalability is good. We have an assurance of data integrity. It is critical.

The pricing can be improved.

We are also using Azure.

For disaster recovery, there's a backup going on in AWS. At the same time, we take our own local backup. It is a daily process. People who want to use the solution must explore the tool and look at the training videos. It is quite straightforward.

We have a subscription model with our customers. They pay it yearly. There are no additional costs associated with the product. We had a problem with storage when we were working with on-premise servers. The hard disks were failing because of the volume of the data. They were regularly failing every three to four months. There was a cost associated with it. It impacted our project.

Overall, I rate the tool a ten 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.

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.