Amazon S3 Reviews

We have deployed Amazon S3 in two places, in Ireland and Northern Ireland. These act as storage for all the data, which is there. We have up to three servers there, one of these is an SQL server and one is Windows.

Feature-wise, Amazon S3 is the cheapest and it's reliable.

Overall, I don't think there's anything that needs to be improved.

The console could be improved - it's not very user-friendly for non-technical guys and the cost has to improve. It does not give us a clear picture of the total cost.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate it an 8.

We are using Amazon S3 for three years now.

It's very stable, you just have to look at cloud security more deeply because otherwise everything gets opened on the cloud.

Amazon S3 is easy to scale - scaling just comes with a cost.

Only the core IT Admin team and I are using this solution. The users do not have access to it.

Amazon technical support is good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. If you don't know how Amazon works, it takes time to set up. Once it is set up then it is straightforward.

We used integrators to deploy as Amazon recommended that at the time in India. They recommended a partner or consultant.

Amazon deployment works beautifully.

If you know what your inside view will look like, you can cut down on your cost. 

Look at cloud security when you first configure the architecture.

We are using the solution to secure the content. 

The solution's most valuable feature is its Uptime availability, especially for the cloud version. Its peak uptime is good. It offers 99.9% availability.

The Folder Access policy needs improvement. They should make it much more user-friendly, then it will be fine. The major challenge is the inability to create more than ten policies. When we want to create folder access, they provide some policy and then give the folder access. There should be an option to have a sub-folder for each folder. They should provide a distribution of access. Presently, we can't access all subfolders at a time.

We have been using the solution for three years now.

I rate the solution's stability as a ten.

The scalability of the solution is ten out of ten. We have more than fifty users of the solution at our company.

When we raise the ticket, we get a response within five to seven days. There needs some improvement.

Neutral

The setup process is simple as we are using the cloud solution. We configured the setting as per our requirements.

I rate the solution as one for pricing. It is expensive but much more secure.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a nine out of ten.

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. 

We predominantly use this solution for our data storage, primarily making DB backups. I'm a lead data engineer.

The product is easy to use, very intuitive, fast and quite flexible. We can manage access and controls using Amazon policies so it's very secure and provides secure implementation methods. All those features help our day-to-day processes and functionalities. 

File versioning could be improved and I'd like to see some additional security features.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We haven't had any downtime in the years we've been using this product. We also have disaster recovery setups but haven't needed them.

Scalability is pretty good, we have over 100 plus users, and inherently all our applications interact with S3. We use it heavily, it's our main storage medium.

The tech support is very good. We had some help with the configuration and some of our niche use cases and more complex aspects of the implementation. Apart from that, we've rarely needed any S3 support because the UI and the functionality itself are straightforward so you don't need to go beyond the standard documentation provided.

We're a small organization and previously had an on-prem solution that was more expensive for us with a lot of overheads. It didn't make sense to continue using it. 

It's a simple deployment once you get the hang of it. We had two people managing the deployment. You can develop your own templates for repeated actions and automate repeat jobs. It's not complex. We're currently using more than 200 terabytes. We're using three different modes so we're using the solution extensively.

We were able to reduce our licensing costs by exploring the different storage classes and different lifecycle management policies. It's a very good tool to control your costs and automate a few of the routine tasks which typically take significant manual effort when you need to write ad-hoc jobs. The storage is quite cheap although there are some processes that bump up the cost. 

We use it for static website hosting, storing data, and second data of some of the websites. We can then easily sync the data whenever we have the need to do so.

Some of our websites are 2 or 4 pages and have static content. We can simply host it by creating a bucket, putting the content of the website there, and making it available to the public with the Make Public feature.

Amazon S3 has multiple types of data detection. You can store data on a monthly basis, yearly basis, and long term basis. You can choose the Glacier feature, create a life cycle policy, and store it. This is one of the best features this solution has.

It is stable and scalable, and the installation is very straightforward as well.

The only pain point is migrating the life cycle policy because if someone is a newbie, they cannot easily create the life cycle policy. This is because there are multiple, additional ways. If I want to store data for one month, they have the option to Glacier over it. With Glacier, you have addition policies for one year or four years. The option will not be there. So you would need to use a UI process over it.

I've been using it for almost the last four years.

I think the stability of Amazon S3 is good.

It is scalable. We currently have 40 plus users.

Amazon Protect Support has been been quite responsive.

The initial setup was completely straightforward.

The licensing is pay as you go, and I'm happy with the pricing.

We didn't evaluate other options because there's no such available feature in the market at present that can compare all the things in a bucket, like S3.

If you are a small scale enterprise that wants to host websites or data, you should go for it and use Amazon S3. 

I would rate Amazon S3 at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We use Amazon S3 for a file storing system. The solution is cloud-based.

We're working with 10-15 applications.

The most valuable feature is the sharing capabilities.

I would like there to be more support without needing to use Transfer Family. 

I have used Amazon S3 for about five years but not at my current organization.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten.

The scalability is good.

I have also used Azure.

The price is okay.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

I would recommend Amazon S3 if you have the use case for it, but Azure provides a similar service.

We use the solution to store deployment logs and tech information.

The solution is simple and affordable to use. The solution's API Integration requests are straightforward; we just have to integrate and acquire the service.

They should improve in the area of metadata curation. Sometimes we open metadata via open source or ground stations in the area. They should design some features with improved performance where we can gain insights as well. It will help in maintaining the solution considering the cost.

It would be great if they get a new feature with the QV mechanism.

We have been using the solution for seven or eight years.

I rate the solution's stability as a ten.

It is a very scalable solution. I have 100-300 colleagues using the solution.

The setup was straightforward. We had an engineer help us establish configuration between the backend and the object. We had to work on the permissions, and the rest was easy. 

We have an in-house engineering team. They are skilled in doing the entire setup.

It's worth the price considering its functionality.

I advise others to have a support team. They should ensure the best practices for transferring the use history from AWS onto other applications via the cloud. It's very easy to find those actions. Most importantly, they must be very careful about the solution's security. They should plan the automation model right, ensuring to maintain the surface area for security. Otherwise, they have nothing to worry about as the solution is well established.

I rate the solution as a ten.

Usually, I use it to make deployments and service solutions in the cloud.

I don't have to waste time buying some computer or buying some external list or whatever they want. I can buy S3 in one minute. I don't have to spend time going to shops or anything like that. The payment is really good, easy. 

I save a lot of time and money with contract people that have to format the computers and install all the applications. 

I can do snapshots and recover data very easily.

It's a very good solution. It is very user cool and very user-friendly. 

I don't have any problems with the solution. It's issue-free.  

I can get a lot of information and data out of the solution, which is critical for me.

It's able to keep diversions quite well. 

The product provides for an easy initial setup.

The solution needs to improve test recognition. We need bots to test that are better. It's just not as good as Google, for example.

My main issue is security. If a code is entered incorrectly, it could leave you vulnerable to attack. 

I'd like to see more connections between EC2 and S3.

I've been using the solution for two or three years.

It is very stable. I never had any problem with S3. It's good. The only problem for me is that it is very easy to put in code that might have some mistake, and, in the end, everybody sees your information. You could have an attack or a hack in as it is very easy to change the entire software.  That is a big issue for me and the guys. 

I don't have any problems with scalability. I have not run into any limitations, however, there may be limitations in terms of the number of folders. That said, I've never seen any scalability issues.

We have ten to 15 people working with the solution. However, it depends on the day. For example, sometimes I am using S3 to produce some information for e-commerce. In e-commerce, I have all the images and all the information that I need on a pdf. However, I'll have some websites where 1000 people are basically connecting.

Technical support is inefficient and poor. 

I am also familiar with Google products.

I previously used some solutions based on MinIO.

The solution is very easy to set up. It's not difficult or complex. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on each project. Some might just take minutes. Others may be longer.

How many people you need for deployment also varies according to what's needed. 

Sometimes we handle it in-house and sometimes we have others handle the initial setup. 

I have seen an ROI. Previously, I needed a lot of people to store, deploy, maintain. Now, I have only a couple of people to work at all this stuff.

The pricing is pretty good. We don't have any issues with it. 

I spend $20,000 more or less every month.

We are a customer and end-user.

We sometimes use the latest version of the solution, however, it depends. They normally update users on the direction of the product. I'm not sure if we have the latest right now or not.

With this product, you can manage your distribution and manage all the different hosted data and who is able to serve or write on the backend. If you make a mistake, you can return to the previous iteration. It's good, even though sometimes it can be a little slow. The price and the quality are very good.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.