The biggest name in cloud services, for a good reason
July 17, 2019
The biggest name in cloud services, for a good reason
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Amazon Web Services
Both within our organization and for clients, we implement several different Amazon Web Services. We mostly make use of EC2 for hosting private cloud servers/applications, Simple Storage Service (S3) for hosting data in the cloud, both for active use and backup, and S3 Glacier for archiving low-touch data to the cloud. All of these AWS services allow us to provide on-demand, infinitely expandable cloud services as needed.
- Easy to deploy. It's trivial to create a new S3 bucket, or spin up a new EC2 VM.
- AWS console is relatively easy to navigate/administrate services. It used to not be the case, but it has improved quite a bit over the years.
- Cost Explorer service makes it somewhat easier to plan/budget and track/manage AWS cost.
- Tons of software, services, etc that integrate directly with AWS services -- example, CloudBerry Backup that integrates with S3, Glacier, etc.
- Cost - Because of the many variables involved in AWS pricing, it can be difficult to budget for AWS costs. For small deployments, this isn't too big of a problem, but when you start using multiple AWS services, even with Cost Explorer, planning can be time-consuming.
- Some of the terminologies are unnecessary. Too much input from marketing types. They should just say what the service does and note waste time with cutesy names.
- On the flip side of the thriving AWS ecosystem, the lack of Amazon-created apps to interface with their services is a bit of a bummer. Sometimes you just want a good, documented, first-party backup app, for example.
- Positive: I have been saved by spinning up an emergency EC2 instance on more than a few occasions. Be it for disaster recovery, or just to set up a server for testing. For IT departments, having basically the entirety of Amazon's network infrastructure at your fingertips is invaluable.
- Negative: I have definitely been burned by AWS cost overruns, usually due to the services being too useful/successful for their own good, introducing mission creep. Basically, if you set up a solution for a client using AWS, they are so pleased they want to expand what AWS is used for. You can explain costs estimates using Cost Explorer but either stakeholders don't pay attention or continue to tweak plans during implementation, then are surprised by AWS monthlies. Not entirely a dig on AWS, but pretty common in my experience.
- Positive: Glacier usage eliminates the need for on-premise archive solutions and having staff physically move archive media offsite for DR purposes.
Since most of our clients are Office 365 users, Azure holds a lot of benefit in its integration possibilities. However, AWS is still less expensive and easier to manage in my experience. There will come a time though, that I'm sure we will move most clients to Azure. Google's products are just a mess in my opinion and I try to avoid using them as much as possible. However, I do have several clients who are very into the Google ecosystem so every now and then I find myself exploring their cloud services.