Amazon S3 is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It's key features are storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.
N/A
IBM Power Virtual Server
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
IBM presents their Power Systems Virtual Server as a scalable, cost-effective way to run IBM AIX, IBM i and Linux workloads.
Amazon S3 is a great service to safely backup your data where redundancy is guaranteed and the cost is fair. We use Amazon S3 for data that we backup and hope we never need to access but in the case of a catastrophic or even small slip of the finger with the delete command we know our data and our client's data is safely backed up by Amazon S3. Transferring data into Amazon S3 is free but transferring data out has an associated, albeit low, cost per GB. This needs to be kept in mind if you plan on transferring out a lot of data frequently. There may be other cost effective options although Amazon S3 prices are really low per GB. Transferring 150TB would cost approximately $50 per month.
It is really impactful in terms of scenarios like ERP systems and Data Analytics where heavy data needs to be analysed in terms of volume and their needs to be high scalability offering so in that scenario it is a great asset and features like distribution of workload using AI capabilities by leveraging modern IBM offerings like Watson is really helpful the area in which it could improve is native development of application in terms of adoption of New cloud Technologies
Fantastic developer API, including AWS command line and library utilities.
Strong integration with the AWS ecosystem, especially with regards to access permissions.
It's astoundingly stable- you can trust it'll stay online and available for anywhere in the world.
Its static website hosting feature is a hidden gem-- it provides perhaps the cheapest, most stable, most high-performing static web hosting available in PaaS.
Web console can be very confusing and challenging to use, especially for new users
Bucket policies are very flexible, but the composability of the security rules can be very confusing to get right, often leading to security rules in use on buckets other than what you believe they are
At the moment we are 100% satisfied with the performance and our support team is well used to the process involved. So unless we have some major issues in adopting, we are sure to be with IBM itself.
It is tricky to get it all set up correctly with policies and getting the IAM settings right. There is also a lot of lifecycle config you can do in terms of moving data to cold/glacier storage. It is also not to be confused with being a OneDrive or SharePoint replacement, they each have their own place in our environment, and S3 is used more by the IT team and accessed by our PHP applications. It is not necessarily used by an average everyday user for storing their pictures or documents, etc.
I would rate IBM Power Virtual Server’s overall usability as an 8 out of 10. The platform offers a solid interface and intuitive dashboard, making it relatively easy for users with cloud experience to navigate. Its scalability and flexibility are strong points. However, the learning curve for new users can be steep, especially when dealing with complex integrations or configurations. While documentation and support are extensive, some users may find the setup process challenging. Overall, it’s highly functional but could be streamlined further for beginners.
AWS has always been quick to resolve any support ticket raised. S3 is no exception. We have only ever used it once to get a clarification regarding the costs involved when data is transferred between S3 and other AWS services or the public internet. We got a response from AWS support team within a day.
As with most IBM products the ongoing support for IBM Power Virtual Server is solid and consistent. IBM provides a clear roadmap for receiving support of their products. Both voice and online response is offered. It is obvious that IBM has the internal systems and culture to maintain support functions. This starts from the initial support call to the problem analysis and continues through the problem resolution. Documentation and communication are consistent within this process.
Overall, we found that Amazon S3 provided a lot of backend features Google Cloud Storage (GCS) simply couldn't compare to. GCS was way more expensive and really did not live up to it. In terms of setup, Google Cloud Storage may have Amazon S3 beat, however, as it is more of a pseudo advanced version of Google Drive, that was not a hard feat for it to achieve. Overall, evaluating GCS, in comparison to S3, was an utter disappointment.
They both have their own ups and downs and it totally depends on the team which suits them best. IBM Power Virtual Server has Performance, Scalability, Reliability and Availability, Compatibility, and Good Vendor Support. The specific use case and workload requirements played a significant role. Some workloads may benefit from IBM Power Systems' architecture, while others may perform equally well on alternative platforms.
I would rate IBM Cognos Analytics’ scalability as a 9 out of 10. The platform is highly capable of handling large volumes of data and supporting thousands of users with ease. Its architecture is designed for high performance, though it may require fine-tuning for extremely complex data environments to maintain optimal performance.
It practically eliminated some real heavy storage servers from our premises and reduced maintenance cost.
The excellent durability and reliability make sure the return of money you invested in.
If the objects which are not active or stale, one needs to remove them. Those objects keep adding cost to each billing cycle. If you are handling a really big infrastructure, sometimes this creates quite a huge bill for preserving un-necessary objects/documents.
There have also been 80% fewer application crashes due to a lack of resources that previously ran on the X86 platform.
Administration management has been simplified and staff can dedicate themselves to the development of applications, instead of providing support to users when the applications do not respond efficiently, this made staff 45% more productive.
