Overall Satisfaction with Amazon Route 53
We use Amazon Route 53 to host a few websites and their content. It is a good option for people who seek to start a website quickly and attach a domain name to it and host HTML5 and static content. You don't need to look for a server. If you are already using Amazon - it is a very good option.
- Host a website.
- Quickly build a website.
- Build a website that hosts static content and HTML5 content.
- Good option if you're already using Amazon services.
- The user interface on Amazon is not very convenient.
- The handling of www redirect is not optimal.
- Lack of HTTPS support. I'm positive it is impossible to implement.
- No website logging support.
- It allows to create and host a website very fast.
- It allows to configure a website even as a temporary hosting.
- It allows to create a website for testing purposes.
- Amazon Route 53 had a positive impact because it saves time and money creating simple web sites.
- It is a good option to test or test play projects.
- Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service), Amazon S3 Glacier and GoDaddy
Amazon Route 53 is intended for simple websites that host HTML5 or static content. This is probably the default solution if you need something simple and don't want to rent a web server to host a website. It is good to host full functional but simple website or HTML5 game.
Do you think Amazon Route 53 delivers good value for the price?
Are you happy with Amazon Route 53's feature set?
Did Amazon Route 53 live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of Amazon Route 53 go as expected?
Would you buy Amazon Route 53 again?
Amazon Route 53 is well suited if:
1. You seek to create a simple website fast.
2. The site would be able to host HTML5 content and static content attach a domain name.
3. Have simple and accessible management.
Scenarios where Amazon Route 53 is less appropriate:
1. If a website needs HTTPS.
2. If you need to have extensive logging and tracing on the website.
3. If a website is designed to host dynamic content.