Amazon S3 Reviews

We use it for Dollar Bank to provide them with Telematics and to transport IoT solutions. We host our full term on X-ray and the data we receive from the devices is put into the Amazon S3 bucket by using the Amazon Kinesis Data Firehose. The data in the Amazon S3 bucket is synced into Google BigFix.

The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 is storage, which provides a personal capacity. Besides, we can send an analytical query on the data storage side using Aetna as a bucket. It also allows us to expose the data and provide data access depending on who we want to share it with. We can also specify how we want to sort the data inside, in a numerical format or any other format.

An encryption mechanism and storage optimization could be added.

I have been using Amazon S3 for around four years now.

The product is pretty stable. I do not recollect facing any issues with the solution.

Amazon S3 is pretty scalable. I would give it a nine out of ten.

Amazon’s technical support team is awesome. I have interacted with Microsoft Virtual Technical support but the support provided by Amazon is very good.

Positive

I previously used AWS service and SQS but it had a lot of issues.

The initial setup was simple.

For pricing, I would give it a six or seven out of ten.

The analytical capability can be improved.

I would give the solution an eight out of ten.

It is mainly for transferring the files we are using from AWS, where we have to transfer the files from AWS to a non-cloud environment.

The security is the most useful aspect of the product.

We've had no issues with stability.

It can scale well. 

You do need to get training on the setup process. It's not straightforward. 

I've been using the solution for four years now 

The solution is stable and reliable. the performance has been good. It's been problem-free. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It can scale well.

We have about 70 people using the product currently.

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

I don't know much about technical support. I don't deal with that aspect. We have a separate team that handles any issues. 

The initial setup isn't easy. We require training to get up to speed. 

I'm not the person that actually handled the deployment.

I don't have any insights into the exact price of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with its capabilities in general. 

It is not for everybody. Potential users can also evaluate Azure as well as AWS, as both are equally good. If you really need a cloud solution, then obviously there are many in the market. The cost is a top pain factor nowadays.

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 are using Amazon S3  for short-term or long-term storage.

The most valuable features of the Amazon S3 are its ease of use and integration

Amazon S3 could improve the limitation on how much data can be stored.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately two years.

Amazon S3 is stable.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good.

Our company uses Amazon S3 as the main target backup solution.

I did not use the support from Amazon S3 because we never faced any challenges.

I have used other similar solutions to Amazon S3, but they are not comparable.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is straightforward, the process took a few minutes.

We did the implementation of Amazon S3 in-house. We used one engineer for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I have seen a return on investment. The cost is based on a consumption-based model, you only pay for your usage.

The price of Amazon S3 depends on various variables. However, the price overall is fair.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

I am using Amazon S3 for storing all the organization data, which comes from a data pipeline.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the accuracy and the life cycle policies, which helps when moving from Amazon S3 to Amazon Glacier.

Amazon S3 could improve some of the features, such as indexing, or we should have more information about all the data stored in a single place. This way we can see what data resides where instead of going in different buckets, file locations manually, or searching. An index would be nice, allowing us to directly go to a location to use the date.

I have used Amazon S3 within the last 12 months.

Amazon S3 is 99.99 percent stable. The solution is highly stable.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is good. If we want more storage we only need to pay extra.

All the workloads of the whole company go to Amazon S3. As our workloads increase, the data increases, and we will use more storage in Amazon S3.

I have not used the support from Amazon S3.

Positive

I have not used another solution similar to Amazon S3.

The initial setup of Amazon S3 is not complex. We are only using it for a storage layer and there were not any complexities.

The cost of Amazon S3 is good. The pricing model is based on the usage of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others, it is one of the most used storage solutions.

I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon S3 for data extraction because a few of the source information for our organization requires us to rely on it for any data point input.

Because it was only mined for the purpose of data extraction.

I think it is reasonably good.

It's difficult to say because I've only been working with it for six months.

The installation could be more straightforward for inexperienced users.

I have been using Amazon S3 for six months.

Amazon S3 is a stable solution.

We were limited to two people because pricing is a consideration.

I'm not sure, because as a team, we use it, but I'm not sure how many there should be in the company.

We have four on our team.

We have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup is moderate. It's neither easy nor difficult. It is reasonable. Because it depends on the individual, I suppose, but my usage is moderate.

I am not sure about the pricing. I have seen the pricing on AWS, but I believe it's a discount price for organizations. I wouldn't know because that is something confidential between the company and AWS.

My advice is to use it. The storage factor and data extraction are faster because we can use Redshift for extraction. It has very low latency.

I would rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten because we are on the cloud, and again, from an organizational standpoint, it is beneficial even for data maintenance

I use Amazon S3 mainly for daily backups of our database.

Amazon S3 has helped our organization because the daily backups can be done automatically with automation. We do not have to spend time on it and I am confident with Amazon S3 in its ability to recover our data.

Amazon S3 is easy to use and it is beneficial to use the CLI to make the backups. Since I use the CLI I do not have to do it on a web portal which is a big advantage because everything can be automatized. Automation can be done very well in Amazon S3.

The solution could improve by having a simpler way to have the detail size of a file in the CLI to be read or understood easier. Today, it's a little raw in the way the details are presented. You have to make some scripts and some modifications to be able to see the information properly of the size of a given bucket or the size of a file.

I have been using Amazon S3 for a long time. I used the latest version because the CLI is normally updated.

The stability of the Amazon S3 is good.

The scalability of Amazon S3 is great.

We are a small company and we have approximately five developers that use Amazon S3. We use the solution on a daily basis for hourly backups.

I have used the support from Amazon S3 a long time ago, I have not needed much help. When I did have contact with them there were times it took a while for a response.

I would rate the technical support of Amazon S3 a three out of five.

Positive

The main difference from other solutions I have used is Amazon is the leader, and it has a very large number of zones and capacity, while others can be smaller and can have different options. Not all the options that are available in Amazon S3 are offered by other competitors, but for the main features, most of them are working fine. I have been evaluating two different solutions, one from a French cloud-based company called Scaleway, and the other is peer-to-peer storage.

The installation was simple. Creating a new bucket and deploying it is very straightforward. To make the script deploy a new bucket takes approximately one hour. 

I would rate the initial setup of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

We did the implementation ourselves and we have two developers that do the maintenance of the solution.

The return on investment has been very good because the backups of our database are critical for our business to operate.

I would rate the return on investment of Amazon S3 a four out of five.

The price of the Amazon S3 is reasonable. There are not any licensing costs, they have a pay-as-you-use model. 

When backups are more than 6 months old, I would recommend keeping less of them and storing the remaining ones in Glacier (long-term, cheaper storage).

I have evaluated other options.

My advice to others is to separate the buckets project, not to put everything in the same bucket, and be sure to implement IAM rules to avoid problems between users and not to lose any backups. The implementation process is important. 

I rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten.

We are making custom applications to the cloud.

We are service providers.

In terms of use cases, where a company wants to deploy their applications instead of building their servers on the premise, on the company premise. They can just, instead of buying servers and setting up networks and everything, buy space online on the AWS cloud. That way, you don't have to buy an expensive server. You already have servers online. You deploy your application. That's the main use case we are handling now. For example, if you have an in-house ERP, you want to move everything to the cloud. We migrate clients, for example. from on-premise to the cloud. If you have heavy tasks, there are computations that require heavy, powerful machines.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It’s easy to set up.

Technical support is excellent.

Amazon, especially its cloud, is the best on the market.

It can lower costs as you won’t need physical hardware on-site.

Regarding S3, S2, and E2, all I'd recommend is for pricing to be lower since we can easily overuse them. For example, if a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.

We’ve used the solution for a while.

AWS is very, very stable. It's actually the most stable cloud service for S3, for all the services provided on the cloud. They're very stable. However, compared to others, they are costly.

We started this year, so we haven't gone much into it. We became partners this year. Right now, we only have one client that we have recently started locally in Kenya.

The tech support is good. It's perfect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. AWS is the easiest to set up. It's the best actually among the cloud providers. It’s number one compared to Google Cloud, Oracle, or Microsoft Azure.

It took a few hours to set up.

We are integrators. We are able to handle the setup ourselves.

Their prices are higher than say Microsoft Azure or Google. So AWS is very easy to use yet expensive.

Licensing is pay as you go. The more resources you use, the more you pay, however, they seem to be more costly than competitors.

We have two options for the cloud. We can choose Oracle Cloud or AWS. We take what is suitable depending on the plan and the cost implications.

We became AWS partners this year.

I’d recommend this and any other AWS product to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.