Amazon S3 Reviews

Our primary use of S3 is for storing data. I'm a senior associate. 

This solution is valuable in that it helps us store all types of data. It's also easy to delete data when necessary and it's very user-friendly.

The upload speed for data and documents is sometimes slow and it would be helpful if that were improved. The other issue is that downloading data is quite expensive. 

I have used this solution for the past three years. 

We occasionally face stability issues with respect to upload speed but it's very rare. 

The customer support is good but it could be improved. When we raise a ticket, sometimes we have to make a follow-up call because we haven't heard back from them. 

Positive

The initial setup was easy. 

I find Amazon to be more efficient and more scalable compared to other solutions on the market. 

I find this solution good for both structured and non-structured data, as well as data access and encryption. It reads more requests per second than other solutions. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

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 this solution for storing the input-output of our processing. We are customers of Amazon. 

Version control is great, it means we can store incremental data, and get high availability and fault tolerance. If we accidentally delete something we can recover it by using S3. It also enables the option of reverting to old files. 

The read drive speed is not as fast as it should be. If we want to access data, we should be able to do it quickly. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is scalable, there are no limitations on storage. There are around 10,000 users in the company. 

Amazon provides good documentation for this solution so we've never contacted technical support. 

The initial setup is easy. It just requires logging in to AWS, and it's available.

This is a pay-as-you-use, on-demand service. It's not very expensive. 

We went with S3 because of its high availability, fault tolerance and scalability. Those are the three main reasons we chose it. 

Our company uses the solution for deep CI backups. We have thousands of customers who use the solution and access our application. 

The solution is good and includes all the features we expect. 

The solution's pricing should be modified to automatically expand storage based on prior usage. For example, our monthly usage is very low so our storage allotment should be increased by 200%.

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is good so I rate it them a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I did not previously use another solution. 

The setup is very easy. 

The pricing depends on your region and is reasonable. For example, the price per gigabyte is .0025 in the South Pacific and .0023 in Europe.  

We use the solution and EC2 with similar frequency depending on use case. 

I recommend the solution and rate it 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 this solution as readily available internet storage.

We find the archival capabilities of this solution quite valuable, because we can have set policies of exactly when, and what to archive. 

We would like to see improvement in the ability to moves files within this solution. At present the process is not straightforward, and requires us to download files to our micro service service before then uploading into the solution. In addition, the transfer bit rate for the process is very slow.

We have been working with this solution for around five years.

We have found this to be a very stable solution.

This is a very scalable solution.

We have found the technical support for this product to be pretty good.

We would recommend potential users of this solution to ensure they have micro-services in place, in order to carry out data transfers.

We would rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

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.

I use the solution for the storage of images and documents.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that I mostly used the tool's free tier version, so I like the fact that its cost is very low.

Recently, I was trying to clean up the data because I have a lot of old, unused objects and images. I am trying to identify the files with the highest sizes and determine if I need to keep them or delete them. I didn't find the user interface very friendly. Beyond 399 or 999 objects, the tool's user interface was not allowing me to use the sort option. I had to use various keywords to search phrases and shortlist them so that I got less than 399 objects and could use the sort option. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

I have been using Amazon S3 for around three years. I think two years back, I was in a different organization, which was an AWS partner. I am a customer of the tool.

It is a stable solution.

The solution's technical support is satisfactory. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

In my previous job, I used Sagemaker, but I don't use it currently. I have also used Amazon EC2 and CloudWatch for billing alerts or something that I might have set them up in the company.

The product's deployment phase is quite comfortable with no issues. The tool's maintenance part is fairly easy.

I don't use it that frequently, so I think it's too early to comment on the tool's pricing structure. Six months later, I may have more data related to the tool.

I can't comment on the pricing part of the product since I don't deal with a high workload for now.

I use the tool's free tier. I believe that there is a need to make annual payments towards the licensing charges associated with the product.

Speaking of the process for retrieving data with the help of the tool, I would say that it is used to just display images on a website. When the page is opened, it gets linked to images and I display it on the website using Amazon S3.

I did not face any performance issues with Amazon S3.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.