What advice do you have for others considering Amazon S3?

Amazon S3 is user-friendly for beginners and easy to manage. I would rate Amazon S3 as nine out of ten.

The recommendation is to study and understand S3 before using it due to its complexity. Learning and trying out different services within S3 is vital. I would rate it nine out of ten, as it is an excellent product, though not perfect.

Before using Amazon S3, understand what you aim to store or achieve. It is particularly suited for hosting static websites. Your data will be secure, and you can access it whenever needed without worry.

New users should not store sensitive data on Amazon S3. Overall, I rate Amazon S3 an eight out of ten.

I would recommend it as part of a good backup strategy. The 3-2-1 approach suggests having three hot copies, two cold storage copies, and one off-site copy. That off-site copy could definitely be an S3 bucket. So I would recommend it in that sense. Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten because it's great for general storage. If you need to access a lot of data all the time and it needs to be fast, then it's not the best solution. There are better solutions out there.

For disaster recovery, we're just starting to implement our strategy. Amazon fulfills its part of the shared responsibility model by providing highly available infrastructure, including data redundancy and regional instance deployment. Their infrastructure is designed to support high availability, which aligns with their disaster recovery stipulations. We’re still in the process of testing our own disaster recovery plans, including running full-scale disaster scenarios to ensure we meet our recovery time objectives (MTTR) and recovery point objectives (MTTD). Although we haven't experienced any outages or data loss since starting operations, we are content with Amazon's disaster recovery infrastructure and will continue to build and test our own processes at our own pace. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We don't use the solution for deployment. We use it to execute the scripts on virtual machines. We have a platform built where we click on something, and then the virtual machines get launched automatically based on a certain AMI image. It takes a lot of time, almost 15 to 20 minutes, to start the machine. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I will recommend the tool to others. We can store large volumes of data and easily integrate the data with other resources. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

For disaster recovery, there's a backup going on in AWS. At the same time, we take our own local backup. It is a daily process. People who want to use the solution must explore the tool and look at the training videos. It is quite straightforward. We have a subscription model with our customers. They pay it yearly. There are no additional costs associated with the product. We had a problem with storage when we were working with on-premise servers. The hard disks were failing because of the volume of the data. They were regularly failing every three to four months. There was a cost associated with it. It impacted our project. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I find it very useful. It's one of the best services out there. I'd give it a nine out of ten. I would recommend it – every user should utilize it for storage.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. Setting it up takes some time at the beginning, but it's reliable and stable once it's all set up.

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.

Our organization chose Amazon S3 because of its scalability, security, and encryption. Since the solution is used for storage, it provides a higher transfer rate to transfer files from one location to another. Amazon S3 is a good choice for someone with a lot of files and needs a lot of storage with easy computation, scalability, and backups. Overall, I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

Amazon S3 is deployed on-cloud in our organization. Our company decided to use Amazon S3 because of its global availability. AWS has multiple data centers around the world. If you're using the public cloud, using Amazon S3 combined with Amazon S3 Glacier is correct. The data will be stored in Amazon S3 storage, and the cost will increase. Instead of keeping the data in Amazon S3, putting the archive file in Amazon S3 Glacier is better. Overall, I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

The product has no specific version. We can create buckets and use them. It is a data storage service like Google Drive. I have not used all the features of the product yet. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I rate Amazon S3 eight out of 10. It's highly stable, scalable, and cost-effective. I recommend S3 depending on the customer's requirements. It's good if you need to store a large amount of read-only data. It isn't for block storage that you need to edit, but it's good for storing application logs.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I am not sure about the solution’s version. It should be either four or five. I have practical knowledge of the tool like its implementation. We store data on the S3 bucket and take it to present to the database. The tool is manageable and maintainable by anyone for their work. This is a perfect tool for data storage. It is good to use S3 as a storage bucket for data.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. I believe that cloud-based services such as cloud computing and cloud security from Amazon's pipeline services are becoming increasingly popular. These services provide a great technological infrastructure for us and I have no doubts or reservations about them.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

In my company, one person deployed Amazon S3. That person is also in charge of maintenance. There's a possibility of increasing Amazon S3 usage in the future. Still, that depends on how much GB my company uses. It depends on the use cases. I advise anyone planning to implement Amazon S3 to stick to the basics and follow the documentation to learn how to set it up. My rating for Amazon S3 is eight out of ten because it's a very good solution.

I recommend this solution to others. I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would advise others that this is a scalable solution that offers comprehensive security. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd recommend it to other companies or users.

I give the solution ten out of ten. The solution is a web service that is hosted on the cloud only. Even if we tried to deploy it on-premise, we couldn't because AWS has the outpost service. Outposts are a way to create an AWS cloud environment locally, but some services are not available. S3 is a regional service and has to be serverless. Amazon S3 doesn't require any maintenance except perhaps one or two people for identity access management and a way to validate users. All of our AWS developers use Amazon S3 including our migration people who have to take a backup using the solution for all the projects. Amazon S3 is the perfect service for all applications for personal use. Anyone can use this solution regardless of their location with an AWS user account. The solution offers good web service and is perfect for anyone that wants to set up a minimal startup static web page for information purposes easily.

I would basically recommend that individuals just follow the guidelines AWS as they are very good. I would rate Amazon S3 an eight on a scale of one to ten.

The solution is great for data and cloud storage. I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten.

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

I rate Amazon S3 nine out of 10. It's an excellent product. I'm also working with it for my personal use. I'm putting my documents and pictures into the S3 bucket.

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.

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.

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

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.

I would recommend this solution to others. I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

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'm an implementor. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten due to its scalability and availability. It also allows multi-zone replications. I would recommend this to customers - especially those that are geographically diverse. Companies like this should consider S3 as shared storage or for integrations required for file transfers and between multiple zones.

If users are looking for highly scalable, competent solutions, then Amazon S3 would be a good choice. I rate Amazon S3 a nine out of ten.

I'm an end-user. I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with its capabilities.

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.

I'd advise new users to read the documentation before deciding on using the solution. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.

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 should not use this solution for the purpose of the logs. We realized if we need to track the logs and a few other things we should use a good log platform which would have been better. We plan to keep using this solution in the future but only for a specific set of purposes. We are moving away from S3 to a different solution, such as Datadog or Elasticsearch because 80% of the usage is only for storage purposes. We will keep on doing the same thing in the future. Only 20% of our usage we are planning to move from S3 to a log platform. I would advise others if this solution fits the use case or expected usage for the end-user then I would recommend it. If they can afford everything that is involved, such as storage and usage fees, then it would be a good choice. They have to consider how frequently they want to access the data from the storage, how many heavy queries they want to run, and are they going to manipulate the data or retrieve the data. They should consider all these scenarios before they make the decision to implement the solution. I rate Amazon S3an eight out of ten.

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 implementors. I would recommend the solution to other companies. it's a very flexible product. It's cheap. You pay for what you get. It's just a cloud. AWS has a really good cloud implementation. I could not compare it with any other -such as Azure or Google - as I have not tried any of those. Users who would like to look at other options should check out Gartner's Magic Quadrant. However, any company can go easily to AWS straight away and be sure that they're going to pay a good price for a good service. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

Other companies are trying to reach them but they've been ahead of the game for a long time. As an object storage product and in comparison to what's available on the market, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

I have experience with many cloud services and with several services through Amazon. I would recommend this solution. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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.

You have to know specifically what it is being used for. One of the issues we face is that it is a developer's environment. In our country, the Philippines, people are often forced upon with brands such as Microsoft, Zadara, and even Oracle. Azure is something that is explored by developers. The onus is with the formal organization to get the people back in. I would rate this solution a fair eight out of ten. It does what I need it to do, but it is a developer's tool. It's not something that I have heard many people harp about.

It's difficult to offer advice as it depends on the use case and what this solution is intended for. This solution is managed fully, and there is no need for upgrades or anything. It's cloud-based. If you just Gmail, you don't upgrade Gmail. I would recommend this solution for companies of any size. It's good for starting up because you only pay for what you use. It's internet-capable, making it good for any company. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.