I would recommend using it. If their security policy prevents them from having data analyzed in a different region, then I recommend moving to Outposts. It might be time-consuming to migrate to services like Glue. I'm mostly concerned about EMR compatibility. If they're sending business data or using data catalogs, that might be difficult. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.
AWS Outposts requires a network connection to AWS for management purposes. It can be connected via AWS Direct Connect or VPN. The solution can be configured with one or more availability zones that provide fault tolerance in an on-premises environment. I would recommend the solution to other users. The solution provides benefits like low latency access and data residency requirements, seamless integration, local processing for sensitivity workload, and hybrid cloud deployment. Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.
If you're in need of a hybrid cloud solution, I highly recommend AWS Outposts. It offers a strong balance of security and speed, and enables you to join the AWS marketplace, access their network, and take advantage of their extensive documentation. When it comes to pricing, it can be a bit more complex to manage cost-wise and you need to carefully assess which features you're using, and how much of them, and then place your order accordingly. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.
I recall the installation process, and it was quite smooth. The technical support team was highly supportive, readily answering our questions and providing suitable solutions. Moreover, the online connectivity aspect was impressive. In comparison to Azure or AWS, there was a notable advantage in this regard.
Many people who work with my team and our customer's team said that the user interface from AWS is too complicated because you need to know how to drive in order to navigate the menus. Azure is more user-friendly, so when talking about the user interface, I think Azure is better. The key to success in using this platform is in the engagement of the customer on both sides. Using AWS requires a lot of knowledge from the people and developers involved. I made a mistake in a project with AWS, and I think I needed to engage the project manager on the business side more in order to know more about KPIs. If you have a customer that has a good development team, you can use AWS more easily. If not, I think the best option is Azure. If you have a technical team but a customer-based database and only a few players and you need to see the cost of using storage and single infrastructure as a service, Oracle is a good option. I would rate this platform an eight out of ten.
Product Director, ICDC Open Source Hybrid Cloud at IBA Group
MSP
2020-11-25T07:57:00Z
Nov 25, 2020
This is a very interesting product. In terms of technical innovation, I'd say it make sense. Especially for those who are very critical to the latency. There are some industries that are very dependent on latency. Even several seconds would be a problem for them. Banks or financial institutions never want to go to the public because it is a kind of paranoia for them because their data could be stolen somehow or could be stored somewhere. They would rather pay money to sleep well because their data is close to them in their buildings, which is surrounded by their military forces. Well, it's a pretty new one, so I would rate Outposts a seven or eight out of ten because there are no limits. It is very new.
AWS Outposts bring native AWS services, infrastructure, and operating models to virtually any data center, co-location space, or on-premises facility. You can use the same APIs, the same tools, the same hardware, and the same functionality across on-premises and the cloud to deliver a truly consistent hybrid experience. Outposts can be used to support workloads that need to remain on-premises due to low latency or local data processing needs.
I rate AWS Outposts a nine out of ten, indicating room for some improvement.
I would recommend using it. If their security policy prevents them from having data analyzed in a different region, then I recommend moving to Outposts. It might be time-consuming to migrate to services like Glue. I'm mostly concerned about EMR compatibility. If they're sending business data or using data catalogs, that might be difficult. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.
AWS Outposts requires a network connection to AWS for management purposes. It can be connected via AWS Direct Connect or VPN. The solution can be configured with one or more availability zones that provide fault tolerance in an on-premises environment. I would recommend the solution to other users. The solution provides benefits like low latency access and data residency requirements, seamless integration, local processing for sensitivity workload, and hybrid cloud deployment. Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.
If you're in need of a hybrid cloud solution, I highly recommend AWS Outposts. It offers a strong balance of security and speed, and enables you to join the AWS marketplace, access their network, and take advantage of their extensive documentation. When it comes to pricing, it can be a bit more complex to manage cost-wise and you need to carefully assess which features you're using, and how much of them, and then place your order accordingly. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.
I recall the installation process, and it was quite smooth. The technical support team was highly supportive, readily answering our questions and providing suitable solutions. Moreover, the online connectivity aspect was impressive. In comparison to Azure or AWS, there was a notable advantage in this regard.
Many people who work with my team and our customer's team said that the user interface from AWS is too complicated because you need to know how to drive in order to navigate the menus. Azure is more user-friendly, so when talking about the user interface, I think Azure is better. The key to success in using this platform is in the engagement of the customer on both sides. Using AWS requires a lot of knowledge from the people and developers involved. I made a mistake in a project with AWS, and I think I needed to engage the project manager on the business side more in order to know more about KPIs. If you have a customer that has a good development team, you can use AWS more easily. If not, I think the best option is Azure. If you have a technical team but a customer-based database and only a few players and you need to see the cost of using storage and single infrastructure as a service, Oracle is a good option. I would rate this platform an eight out of ten.
I rate AWS Outposts nine out of 10. It's a highly stable product that does what we need it to do.
This is a very interesting product. In terms of technical innovation, I'd say it make sense. Especially for those who are very critical to the latency. There are some industries that are very dependent on latency. Even several seconds would be a problem for them. Banks or financial institutions never want to go to the public because it is a kind of paranoia for them because their data could be stolen somehow or could be stored somewhere. They would rather pay money to sleep well because their data is close to them in their buildings, which is surrounded by their military forces. Well, it's a pretty new one, so I would rate Outposts a seven or eight out of ten because there are no limits. It is very new.