Amazon S3 Reviews

Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is particularly well-suited for cases where you have already made the decision to use Amazon's cloud software resources and need to add the option of storing files for use from one or more services. Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is also a good choice for its native integration with Amazon's CDN, Cloudfront. In general, using Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) will make less sense if you are already using other services from another vendor, such as Azure.

• We use S3 as an entry point (landing zone for data). We can then transform (normalize) the data and store it again.
• S3 has great services built around automating tasks to be done when an object is updated/created/deleted.
• S3 has built-in replication for back up and disaster recovery.

It is not great that some of it features require you to think about how you want to store your data. For example to get the cheapest usage it is recommended to use less objects with greater size instead of many objects of tiny size.

It is best when you want to store a lot of data like backups, data lakes, logs, etc. It saves a lot of money. It also provides archiving facility. You can also enable versioning on objects which can help in versioning builds and artefacts. You can use it to enable events to do something upon data creation or deletion on it. Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is a great service that serves a lot of purposes. You can use it to store data in many formats like jpg, gzip, txt, csv, parquet, avro, etc.
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) shouldn't be used if you're looking for storage like RDBMS or NoSQL.

Amazon S3 handles file storage exceptionally well and has the necessary features to be useful to anyone. S3 would not be ideal as a substitute for a computer hard drive but would be as a backup for that hard drive, or an extension of it, which you can delegate access to and where your internet speed is the only factor to consider.

Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is well suited for large, unstructured data storage and for querying that data using a range of integrations (e.g., AWS Redshift and AWS Athena). It works very well serving static files associated with applications as well (e.g., file uploads, images, etc.). However, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) does not serve well as a remote file system or snap-mounted storage for compute engines or VMs.

I use AWS for all my personal work because it's fast and integrates with so many other AWS products that I make use of daily. I love the fact their are various storage classes such as Standard, Infrequently Accessed, One-Zone and Glacier that allow for generous discounts. Glacier Storage within AWS is extremely cheap if you can afford to wait 12 or so hour to 'thaw out' your files. *Also there is an 'Intelligent Tiering' option with AWS will assign the most cost effective storage class for you based on your usage

It's great for storage of files you need to keep for regulatory purposes but will likely never need to access again.

I personally store all my music/photography files on AWS so it's almost impossible to every lose them

Amazon S3 [(Simple Storage Service)] is best to host static resources for apps and sites like audio files and images. It is good to store backups as external storage. Amazon S3 is not appropriate and expensive to host dynamic site or app. In that case dedicated server would be better.

Very well suited to storing files that have a long "shelf life." Less suited if you need to move then (download or upload) multiple times because you pay for bandwidth.

If you use AWS then Amazon S3 is a great file store service.

I've used S3 continuously for projects large and small for over 10 years. It's just such a common and essential tool in software development. Hosting assets/images, or providing file upload abilities to users, come up very often throughout software, and S3 is hands-down the best place to serve and store files. It's flexible enough that you can use client libraries to perform direct uploads rather than writing your own handlers, etc. S3 is a tool that immediately has value for file hosting and storage, and then extends as far as you need it to for all manner of asset management.

It is great for temp infrastructure artifacts during deployment or if you are using containerized apps and Kubernetes. This would be a place to store your files. Whether those are public or private documents, it is a great location to store. Additionally, it is a great place for archives. Storing old data for a really cheap price is something that you can't get on-prem.

Amazon S3 is well suited for hosting any type of object. Highly recommended if already using with any other AWS service since integration becomes easier. It is good for any organization that has a dedicated IT Department. Not recommended if the company does not have a team with experience in AWS services that monitors it since it could end up being a mess or expensive.

Backup your environment (from dumps to local files), it is a great alternative. If you think in put your files, and know when they need to be deleted, you may use the bucket policy to automate it for you, If you need that your application receive or send some files, S3 may keep these files too.

Its less appropriate when you need speed to access files. It's not slow, but depending of the speed you need, it's not recommended, yet, cause they're always improving.

Amazon S3 is well suited for hosting a static website in a very short time and also for storing a huge chunk of data while using AWS services. It was difficult for us to integrate it with Azure cloud services as S3 has tight AWS integration.

When any organization wants to take advantage of the AWS ecosystem, S3 is the most basic service. As a standalone service, one can use it just for storage. However, with the orchestration of other AWS services, it makes true value.
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.

It is well suited to storing files from, or for, servers and internet access.

Amazon S3 is a great choice to store frequently accessed image and media assets that might be needed as part of your website, web app or mobile application. There is also Amazon's "Glacier" storage option which is a storage class that is meant for data that isn't frequently accessed, and which can be stored at a significantly lower cost.

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.

Amazon S3 is a perfect storage place for files and images for applications. Generally if you are less tech savy and just looking for simple cloud storage that doesn't need any automation or programming to send files to the cloud, it's best to go with a standard Dropbox or Google Drive. Also if your apps run off of Amazon Cloud or other services, it's nice to all have in one place.

If you are planning on using S3 as a basic storage solution, I would recommend it. It compares well both on price and feature set to other comparable static file stores such as Google Drive and Backblaze B2. However, with S3, you get the benefit of being integrated into the AWS ecosystem. You can set up fairly complex data layers and services with ease by having your data in S3, as compared to other services.

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.

It is great for cheap, well-distributed, fast storage that is easy to use and manage. I can't think of a scenario where this would not be preferable as the default file store.

I like the service in general. It was simple to integrate to our application since it's very common for developers to use it and there are many libraries to help with that. The service works well as expected.

S3 can be used to store your application logs or objects that need to be frequently accessed. It can also be used in conjunction with AWS Glue for data transformation tasks or to host a static website. The entire Simple Monthly Calculator service of AWS is hosted on S3. S3 would not be recommended for use as a database service or where the change needs to be reflected instantly. Since S3 provides eventual consistency, there is no guarantee that an update made by someone will actually be seen by someone accessing the same object just after. This is in contrast to a database wherein if a change is committed, it will start showing instantly to everyone else.

I would highly recommend S3 if you can dedicate IT staff to properly manage and monitor S3. For a small organization that is not able to dedicate the staff that is required, S3 could become expensive.