Amazon S3 Reviews

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.

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.

We use the solution for data blocking and analysis. It is also used as a storage solution, gene access and maintaining access.

The most valuable features are VNet, virtual machines, and Elastic Kubernetes Service.

We have been using this solution for eight years and are using the latest version. It can be deployed anywhere. We can use a console and data from and on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution because it is low latency. We have several users and plan to increase usage in the future.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used a storage account in Azure and Data Lake.

The initial setup was straightforward. We use Terraform for deployment, and we only need one person for deployment.

We have seen a return on investment because we do not pay overhead costs.

It is expensive for storing, but it is way cheaper for retrieval.

We evaluated block storage.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Amazon S3 for image and video files.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are compatibility and reliability.

Amazon S3 could improve by providing some type of storage notification.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately 18 months.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good.

We have approximately 500 people using the solution and plan to increase usage.

I have used the support from Amazon S3. The speed of the support could be faster.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward. The time it took for implementation took approximately one week,

We used an integrator for the implementation of Amazon S3.

We have approximately three administrators that do the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

The price of Amazon S3 is competitive with other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of 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.

I am managing the S3 storage solution from Amazon. From Microsoft, I'm managing the Azure administration. I handle that. As a part of that, I need to create the virtual machines, a point to site to VPN and Azure AD, AD synchronization with Windows server, a database server, mail server, and web server. I administrate all that.

We use Amazon S3 for storing files and documents on the cloud. I fill out the user whenever the files they use are downloaded. That is fully automated. After a few days, it can delete it. I've done the policy for the automated deletion.

Amazon S3 is great. We are using it for storage solutions.

Due to using S3, our data documents are safe and easy to access. It is better to keep them in the cloud as opposed to in our internal drive. You can access them from anywhere. Especially during the pandemic period, we are able to access remotely, as well. So it's good.

We are using the basic S3 bucket. It is easy to manage and easy to understand.

We need the mapping to Windows. That feature is needed in S3. That feature is in the Azure cloud where we can map it like a drive. We can map the cloud storage to the effort driving our Windows PC. But Amazon is not providing that feature for the S3 solution.

In the next release I would like to see mapping on the Windows machine. In Windows, there are drives right in volumes. We need to map these Amazon S3 storage to the Windows. That usually is available in the Azure. I would like to have that in the Amazon as well.

We have been using Amazon S3 for just six months as of now.

In terms of stability, it is good and has no issues.

We can scale Amazon S3 for storage. We can increase or scale up and we can scale down. It's easy to manage.

I'm happy where I'm at right now. If we need more storage, we will implement. We'll scale it up.

As of now, I haven't needed to contact support. It is really easy to manage. Even for the small issues, we can just Google the issues and find the solution. For complex issues, we may need to contact them, but as of now, I haven't needed to. I haven't faced any issues like that, so I didn't contact support. We have found that there is enough online documentation regarding S3.

We switched because of the security and scalability. It is highly secure because nobody can access it. Before we had solutions using an FTP and SFTP. That protocol is different and we are now using the S3. We need a shared key and an access secret key to access the particular storage. Without that, we cannot access. We cannot do anything. So security is more important. That's why we switched to Amazon S3.

The initial setup is simple and easy to manage.

It's not actually a deployment. It is a simple step. Within five minutes, we can deploy it.

Our implementation strategy for the solution is based on the user's document files and how much GB they want and how they want to access that particular story's solution. Based on that scenario, I create the S3 bucket on the cloud for the particular users - whoever wants to access that particular S3. I created that particular IM user, the user access for that particular storage. I make an access policy to that particular storage.

Our ROI is good based on our usage. We have multiple users who are accessing this S3 storage.

It's a monthly pricing.

We are happy with the pricing.

Amazon S3 is a great solution.

My advice is to have an implementation strategy based on the user usage.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Amazon S3 an eight.

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 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.