AWS Directory Service Reviews

This directory service was used for domain authentication and policy implementation. These features were easily available and configurable.

This is a managed directory service (by AWS) that offers a hands-free solution for our team as we are not required to hire or train people to manage Active Directory features and/or high availability backups. There is also no security patching required on an operating system level or Active Directory malware attack. Additionally, we are able to easily integrate other AWS services.

AWS handles everything on the backend requiring minimal legwork from our team. We only require a dedicated database administrator while depending on Amazon for RDS.

Our only complaint is that you cannot integrate your Exchange server. Or, if you are planning to install an Exchange server on your Amazon EC2 instance, then you need to configure Active Directory on EC2 instance. We would like for this limitation to be lifted.

I did not find any performance issues, likely since this is a managed service that does not take a lot of CPU resources.

This solution is scalable and does not require any maintenance on our end. 

We did not require their assistance while using the AWS Directory Service.

We switched because my company is the only core partner to Amazon in Pakistan and we have more than 300 certified people with predefined training.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The process required only one person to deploy and took just one day as it was easy to configure and implement AWS.

We were able to see some return on investment thanks to this being a managed service only requiring us to hire two to three people to manage backup/disaster solutions.

It is important to note that there are no hidden fees following initial purchase.

I highly recommend any AWS Managed Service. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I'm the database admin and we are partners with AWS.

It's a pretty good solution in terms of performance with good availability and minimal downtime. It's easy to migrate and the UI is user-friendly. 

I'd like to see some additional features, similar to what Azure has. 

I've been using this solution for one year. 

The solution is scalable. 

We've used the technical support and it's pretty good. 

Positive

The deployment took around one week but I wasn't involved in that aspect. We have a team of five people who maintain the solution. 

This is a good product and I rate it nine out of 10. 

My client uses it as a VMware host.

We like the fact that it's got such great redundancy. We don't have to worry about power or any of the CapEx costs.

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is great.

The cost for support's a little high.

AWS could improve the number of regions. Azure has passed them. The ned more consistency, as far as the Northeast is concerned. They need to put in some more resources, more bandwidth into that area in particular. We have to keep putting our stuff in the central east or the central regions due to the fact that the Northeast is always so overloaded.

The stability of the product is very good. Very nice. It's much more stable in the containerized enclosure inside of a privatized data center - other than the issues with being on the cloud and hackers bringing down the entire environment. Other than that, there are very few problems.

We have around 600,000 users currently.

We do plan to increase usage.

Our clients are gradually walking off instances from VMware to containerized instances. We're walking away from VMware mainly due to the fact that we're paying three times. They're running a Citrix environment in a VMware instance on the cloud. I told them, we're just going to containerize the instances for the application and work on more of a software model instead of an instance model. 

You do need to pay for support, which comes at a rather high cost.

I don't deal with them. We don't deal with tech support. We do it ourselves.

I'm also familiar with Azure. AWS is easy to use, however, Azure is way easier to use when it comes to migration as all the tools are already in place. All the integration is already there. Microsoft did that on purpose.

That said, when it comes to the Linux environment, AWS is awesome. When you are running Oracle, AWS is very nice.

The implementation process is quite straightforward. It's not difficult at all. We create instances with JSON scripts, which means it's instantaneous. There's no problem.

We have five people that maintain the solution.

As you pay monthly, I'd say the toughest part is getting management to understand the differences in cost. When they start seeing that monthly cost, they start to freak out. You have to remind them that they didn't put out millions for the CapEx cost. It's harder for them to grasp the cost.

It's pretty pricey. There's no doubt about it. However, in enclosed containerized instances in, for example, an HPE GreenLake framework with the frame internalized inside of the client environment, it's not nearly as expensive.

The pricing is convoluted. I would prefer it if all cloud solutions come up with better modeling. I know it's difficult to come up with an all-in-one cost, mainly due to the variance in the environments. I understand that. However, they need to centralize their cost a whole lot more.

We are an AWS partner. 

I'd advise new users to take accounting classes. Take cloud accounting and costing classes to help you understand and explain what you mean. That way, when the accounting group from the existing CapEx IT group balks, you can explain the breakdown to them. There's very little training involved, however, you need to get trained in that aspect.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten, simply based on the cost. It's very expensive. However, I'd give it a nine for ease of use, as it is intuitive.

I like the manageability. Activate Connect makes it easier to assign information and to manage the resources in the network.

The group policy can be improved. 

I have been using AWS Directory Service for six years. 

It is stable .

It is scalable. 

We have been in touch with technical support. They were good. 

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment didn't take more than a half-hour for an expert to setup. 

My advice to someone considering this solution is that before working on this it is better to have good theoretical knowledge about this solution, otherwise if something goes wrong it can impact the entire use.

The private cloud hypervisor is not so stable so far. They should improve the stability in the next release. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

The most valuable feature is ease of use.

The documentation is okay.

I would like to see better integration with other business solutions.

I have been using AWS Directory Service for less than one year.

This solution is stable.

AWS Directory Service is a scalable solution. We have thirty users in our company and we do plan on increasing our usage.

Technical support is ok.

I have used Microsoft Active Directory, and we switched because AWS Directory Service is easier to use.

The initial setup was straightforward. I think that it took about two weeks to deploy.

Two people are suitable for maintenance.

The pricing is reasonable.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this one.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to first make sure that they want to use other AWS services. If they do not intend to do so, then they can simply use Microsoft Active Directory.

This solution does what we want to achieve.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.