Reviews (1-25 of 49)
- Ability to have files switched over to long term storage after inactivity.
- Backups of files available if a loss occurs.
- Access to files as needed from multiple points and availability.
- Region availability all over the globe.
- Easier API integration and better documentation.
- Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is used by the department of engineering to host several static websites. The apps are written mainly in Angular and Jekyll.
- We host the websites in S3 buckets, distribute them through Cloudfront which provide a CDN and an SSL connection, and then set up the domain that will be used through DNS configuration at Cloudflare.
- Outstanding UI/UX (drag & drop features help a lot)
- Per-file permission system (make a file public or not)
- Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) does not provide SSL. Right now, you always need to use Cloudfront if you want to have SSL.
- Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is what you are looking for if you require to host static files. That includes serverless websites, images, videos, etc.
- Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is not suited for web sites that run on a backend (Django, ASP.NET web forms, etc.) because it does not run any server for them to execute.
- Centralized location for all your organizations data.
- Great 3rd party API and integration.
- Cost effective if properly monitored and maintained.
- Ease to use and set-up.
- Permissions can become complex.
- UI needs to be updated and looks dated.
- Tech support should be improved.
- Very simple to setup and administer.
- Can grow with your storage needs.
- Cost effective.
- Geo redundant.
- Fault tolerant and reliable.
- If not managed correct it could get expensive.
- Searching needs to be improved and is not effective.
- Better reporting would be great.
One of the other most prominent use which we do with S3 is to transfer large files. With strict IMA policies, we can make sure of proper access to these files. While we use other AWS services like EC2 to host machine for any computation purpose, we need to store interim results and final results. We store these results to S3 and kill the EC2 instance.
Also, we have scripts written for transferring S3 objects (not used for more than 2 years) to Glacier to minimize cost factor.
- Excellent support of Identity and access management makes sure that your objects are used by the intended audience only.
- Entire service is accessible through commands and API. It makes integration and orchestration of S3 services really easy and automated.
- S3 has quite good reliability and durability to make sure all requests are successfully fulfilled and your objects are always safe.
- This service and UI interface is easy to understand. It takes almost no learning curve to consume this service.
- The amount of flexibility it provides, I find it really cost-effective.
- The biggest problem is to rename the bucket. There is no direct way to do it. One need to copy entire content to the different bucket with intended bucket name and then remove the old bucket. Sometimes it creates issues.
- There is no direct way to upload .zip file and extract it to inside the bucket.
- While uploading large files, sometimes you will find a drop of upload speed. I observe it so many times and while checking my internet speed, I find it absolutely perfect. So there must have something wrong on the AWS side.
If a product needs to support a geographically well-distributed client, S3 edge locations and regions help extremely well. User need not worry about content sync up or replication at all. This makes S3 extremely useful for static content storage.
If the infrastructure need is really small and usage is limited, this service is not for you.
- Ensures web and application servers don't get bogged down from serving static assets.
- Works with popular frameworks for easy integration in applications to allow user uploading of additional assets.
- Integrates easily with Amazon Cloudfront as a CDN.
- Very little configuration needed to get started.
- The website UI, while easy to use by even less technical staff, but certain options such as allowing public read for new uploads by default instead of manual selection, requires a bit more technical knowledge. (That said there is generally a custom UI built for users to upload files anyway so in our situation this isn't important).
At the moment there is really no reason for us to choose a different service for this use case. The popularity of S3 means that any new developers working with us are already familiar with how to work with it.
However, if you are thinking of using S3 as a kind of NFS replacement, I wouldn't recommend it. There is no idea of object pointers in S3, so folders don't exist. Therefore, complex "nested" file organizations are really just a series of strings prefixed to the actual file. This results in slow speeds unless you setup filename hashing.
- A lot of libraries to make it easy to use it
- A good price for the service
- Fine grained permissions
- Hard to use UI. Amazon likes to make things complicated in the UI
- Vendor lock-in. When you start using products by Amazon, you usually get a vendor lock-in, as everything is there. It's not bad per se, but it's important to think about it
- Reliable and secure way to store objects in cloud: Storing any type of file(text, pdf, doc, csv, etc) is very easy with S3. Fetching this stored content as and when you require is also pretty easy and can be done using both the console and AWS CLI. Appropriate permissions can be set up for buckets using IAM roles/policies.
- Versioning in buckets: S3 gives you a very handy feature to store multiple versions of objects stored in a bucket.
- Lifecycle policies: You can set up lifecycle policies in S3 that can move your older objects to IA or Glacier. This setup is very easy and can be done within minutes for a bucket.
- Replication: The cross-region replication that S3 provides is wonderful. Beware of the inter-regional data transfer costs though.
- No support for object versions retention: There can be a retention policy(days or number) for object versions that are stored in S3 so that we don't have to worry about paying extra for all the old versions of an object in the bucket.
- No feature for replication within a region: Currently AWS does not support replication within a region. Also, having to enable versioning for buckets in which you need replication makes it even more costly.
- Confusing pricing: The pricing model of S3 can be a little confusing for a new customer with questions regarding data transfer from other AWS services, between buckets or data transfer to the outside world.
- Fast: S3 is quite fast, even when compared to other similar hosting and storage setups that aim to compete with S3.
- Reliable: AWS, in general, has great uptime and reliability.
- Powerful: S3's APIs are quite powerful and fairly flexible, meaning that with sufficient engineering investment you can do a whole lot with S3.
- Expensive: S3 isn't cheap; when the speed and capacity is overkill, we've ended up looking elsewhere for hosting and storage.
- Complexity: S3 is (like the rest of AWS) a profoundly complicated platform, and there's a steep learning curve to use it.
- Customer support: AWS has not had particularly meaningful or useful customer support in our experience. You're really on your own with the platform.
- Price - S3 is very cheap
- Ease of use - It is an extremely simple service with basic upload, download, and list commands accessible via the web, APIs, and CLIs.
- Security - S3's integration with IAM makes security easy and powerful.
- Advanced searches - Searching within S3 for files can be a very painful process and very slow.
- Dangerous - rogue users can do a lot of damage if you have important data stored in S3
- The web interface can be difficult to use for inexperienced users.
We are using S3 for storing compliance generated by various internal tools. The reports are not frequently accessed but we have legal guidelines for retention. We also use s3 to host static web interfaces with links to the document. It makes really easy to access the documents anywhere. We also use s3 to store various inputs to other AWS services such as AWS Sagemaker.
- S3 provides a cost-effective, reliable, and durable way to store objects.
- S3 can store files from almost any system with its great SDK and API.
- S3 provides multiple tiers of storage which make it cost-effective based on usage.
- I would like to see better control within the s3 bucket policies. It is hard to decide whether to use a bucket ACL or policy.
- I would like to see the ability to lock down list permissions and still see it in the AWS console.
- S3 is very good with uptime
- S3 is elastic and infinitely scalable
- S3 is user-friendly
- S3 is not good if you need to copy files a lot; it can be slow
- S3 is not a replacement for a file system. It is blob storage, so things like updates and renames are impossible
- S3 requires globally unique bucket names, which can be a challenge
- Storing and reading data from S3 buckets are very well designed. You can store any kind of data as you like.
- The static website serving feature is great. You can serve your APIs in seconds if you are using Swagger like API development tools.
- Access management of S3 Buckets are good. You can define private buckets or files easily.
- POST, PUT and LIST requests are not free. If you are planning to store TBs of data and will download them frequently, It may be expensive.
- Data management and storage
- Quick upload, download and move on EC2 instance
- Security and HIPAA compliance
- Folder sharing with multi level permission
- APIs and libraries to access data through any programming language
- Searching for the document is very hard, it allows only prefix to search the files.
- Also, downloads require more than one click which irritates frequent users.
- Price compared to service is a little bit high, still not a major concern.
Restoration of databases from file to RDS.
- It's good for working with files across the entire AWS ecosystem.
- It's good as a fast to set up source of large amounts of storage as needed for projects.
- It's good as a storage location for third party devices and services that need a place to store data, backups, etc.
- It is only object based storage. You can upload and download files. It is not like having a randomly accessible hard drive that you can host a live database on. There may be uses where S3 acting more like a randomly accessible hard drive would be useful.
- Integration between other areas of the AWS ecosystem can be a bit difficult to set up and use. For example, file-based SQL server restores into RDS instances.
- Some of the more complex functions need to be done by remote command line.
2. If you require a content delivery network like AWS Cloudfront, S3 will be where your data is actually stored.
3. If you have third party products that are designed to work with S3 cloud storage.
It allows us to set metadata which also allows files to clean up after itself, which prevents our organization from storing information longer than needed which is wonderful (and keeps us only paying for what we really need to store). S3 is our go-to for any cloud storage needs as well as a location to host static content distributed through Cloudfront and provide public access to files as needed.
- It has a good command line interface making it easy to use from anywhere
- It has a well-built SDK across many languages allowing applications to integrate
- You only pay for what you use, so there is no need to upgrade/downgrade storage capacity
- S3 allows objects to store metadata allowing some very useful options (such as object expiration)
- You can now use it to also see the metadata within your objects, such as images/videos metadata (location, duration, capture date, etc)
- IAM allows you to control access to S3 to set proper permissions
- It could be useful to have reports showing file usage/aging
- It would be nice to be ale to query S3 without the need to look at each and every object
- Storage! You can store as much as you like in whatever format and structure you like.
- Pay as you go - you only pay for what you use, so your storage costs scale up and down with your storage and access patterns. No more having to provision space ahead of time or having wasted space floating around. It's also fairly inexpensive.
- It isn't the cheapest out there for storage, but I think still represents good value for money. You do also have a large array of storage options which can lower the cost if you are willing to reduce reliability/robustness.
- You can't use HTTPS off the bat with S3, so you almost always need to put CloudFront (or similar CDN) in front of it. Whilst this isn't a problem, it means it isn't quite as quick and straightforward to get going with as perhaps some other services.
- Whilst generally very low latency, we have observed occasional latency spikes whilst retrieving objects. Assuming you are running a CDN in front of S3 (which you should) then this becomes less problematic, but it probably isn't the best choice if you absolutely must guarantee low latency.
- S3 provides possibly the most easily scalable cloud storage service on the planet. It feels as though it's been custom build from day 1 with company growth in mind - something any healthy business will surely appreciate.
- The intricate system of S3 servers across the globe is a great feature for anyone conducting any sort of international business. You get to choose where your data is stored and, as we all know from bounce rates, every millisecond of load time can be the difference between making or losing a sale.
- Pulling data is another feature we use quite often and it honestly works flawlessly every single time we have to pull anything.
- It's genuinely hard to fault S3 so I'll have to resort to nitpicking but their main interface is quite bland, still super easy to use and navigate, just bland.
- Contacting their support can be quite cumbersome as every ticket is sent through the always cumbersome Amazon hierarchy of internal bureaucracy (similar to Seller Central) but it's not the worst system in the world by any means.
- At this point, I'm almost out of critiques - after all, it's what huge digital entertainment companies like Netflix rely on to make a living. That being said, there's always room for improvement and perhaps creating more servers around the world would decrease their minimal send and retrieval times.
- Allows for ease of setting up multiple buckets to keep your assets organized
- Gives you the option of keeping your images public or private - good for keeping your image storage organized with what you want to exposed/not exposed to users
- Allows for easy integration with other AWS products
- Web interface is not the most intuitive at first. Takes some time getting used to
- Private assets being displayed could end up breaking your site if you're unaware that you need to set them public
- S3 is overall an expensive option for a smaller company
Amazon S3 Scorecard Summary
About Amazon S3
Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It offers scalability, data availability, security, and performance. It provides great utility for storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.
It is suitable for businesses or organizations of any size to store and protect any amount of data for a range of use cases, such as websites, mobile applications, backup and restore, archive, enterprise applications, IoT devices, and big data analytics. Amazon S3 provides management features for organizing data and configuring access controls to meet business, organizational, and compliance requirements.
Amazon S3 Technical Details