3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Sep 20, 2016
Technically everything went very well but ones we came to the data security/privacy and more specific in a global setup , AWS was not willing to comply or make an effort to comply.
look very carefully into data privacy and IP
flexibility and ease of implementation
did not find really something that I really did not like
be more service orientated and try to find tailor-made solutions for potential bigger deals
when data privacy comes into play in a multi-regional environment a one size fits all approach is not viable
perfect and as a pure IaaS but tricky on the privacy part in a global environment
the few issues we had were solved adequately
First of implemenations were very fast and to the point
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Sep 9, 2016
Strong, mature IaaS services, that we find reliable and predictable.
train internal teams. create clear messaging on AWS strategy
not enough cost savings up front.
train internal teams earlier.
Conduct internal staff training earlier and educate internal constituates
not as professional as other support organizations we have dealt with
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Sep 6, 2016
For breadth of offering, nothing beats AWS. The experience was everything we expected.
The third party community for AWS is pretty uneven. The vetting of partners is not at the level I was used to in working with Microsoft technologies.
Just about everything you can think of is under one roof.
AWS could do more to make adoption of their solutions easier through partners that are better vetted or - even better - a more comprehensive professional services offering out of AWS itself.
AWS is working on its partner ecosystem, but it needs to do more.
If we started over, we might spend more time in training infrastructure staff and more explicitly organize teams around the effort from dev through I&O.
AWS has the broadest set of capabilities. I'm continually impressed by the rollout of new features and capabilities.
We have had limited cause to use service and support.
Depending on your project, getting up and running is very fast. Having a team focused on the activity that is sufficiently knowledgeable to work through roadblocks is the key ingredient.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 25, 2016
The key positive outcome was the speed of delivery. The key negative performance has been that the capacity is occasionally not available.
Great support from account rep and technical support.
2 of 2 peer(s) found this review helpful.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 18, 2016
Service management is more complex than it probably needs to be. While I understand that AWS is deploying new and updated services every other week and that they have a need to differentiate their offerings from other vendors, it really should be easier to identify and map AWS services against my requirements. Otherthan that (and getting a bit tired of cute/geeky service names), we're very happy with AWS for the use cases where it fits.
Spend the money for some consulting hours and training up-front. Just do it, you can thank me later.
Reliability, services, rapid deployment, overall ease of use.
Connectivity - to establish carrier-class circuits to AWS from our HQ costs enough (over $1M/yr) to immediately eliminate any Cost benefit from using AWS. They need to esablish POPs in a larger number of locations
Work with the Federal Government to provide TIC-equivalent functionality at a subset of their network border crossings.
We would start with bringing in an AWS consultant to guide us through the initial architecture planning. That would have saved us months of dead-ends and backtracking as we developed our architecture and implementation roadmap
AWS is constantly adding new services to their mix, including some service types that remain unique
They are on-the-spot any time we have a question or issue.
Once we got through the architecture and design phase (which took us longer than it should have, as we didn't make use of some of the consulting services available to us), the actual deployment was remarkably simple and trouble-free.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 18, 2016
The experience with AWS was just amazing in terms of flexibility and capabilities to implement the desired architecture we promote at the business case
First understand the architecture that your are planning to deploy as Cloud Native and not try to lift and deploy as on-premise because there are many things that just doesn't work the same
Flexibility, scalability, ease of use
3rd Party integrator expertise
Improve the ELB capabilities by adding more layer 7 features
3rd party integrator we choose didn't have any security expertise making things harder internally with our security standards
AWS for me have everything we need, we have a two cloud providers strategy but for IaaS definetly AWS is the right solution
Great response for the AWS Team and the 3rd party vendors of the AWS MarketPlace in this case Fortinet
Integration with all of our systems was just great, we have like 15 integrations with 3rd party vendors all over the world and the AWS platform was just amazing
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 17, 2016
Support still needs to be improved
Please do a Sandbox deployment first and irone out all of the issues before production deployment
Cost and potential vendor lock-in
AWS does not have enterprise support experience, they should hire more professionals so they can support the enterprise customers better
TAGging and Financial Management is big part of success. We will make sure all of the processes and tools are in place before implementation
Support needs to be improved and more enterprise support is required
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 17, 2016
The vendor provided access to the right internal SMEs to help evaluate their product.
Seek to partner with the appropriate technical SMEs at AWS as you plan your deployment. Ask a lot of questions and be sure to understand the SLAs for the services are seeking to leverage. In our case, doing a comprehensive security review and determining the best practices for insuring any data we uploaded would remain private.
The engagement with AWS SMEs was invaluable and the services selected are relatively easy to configure with the proper planning to address the requirements of the specific project.
Lots of capabilities as well as high availability features.
More flexible technical service options and price points.
At this time we are still learning and have approached this work in an iterative fashion. Where we are now in terms of implementation, particularly at the network connectivity layer, will evolve and change as the service we are developing needs to scale.
To-date AWS has been responsive, but this is a relatively new implementation, so it will be interesting to see how they perform over time.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 16, 2016
It is difficult to negotiate contracts through a 3rd-party VAR. Integration with self-provisioning tools takes internal expertise. There is great value in the variety of services offered however we have no insight into the vendor's roadmap. This makes future services planning difficult.
The agility and self-provisioning functionality.
Provide a technical services roadmap.
Hire a cloud architect and a CTO prior to developing a cloud strategy.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 15, 2016
AWS cost could be high at scale especially looking at network, compute and storage costs. Network cost could be a big cost surprise as AWS charges GB transfer between availability zones and VPCs. To provide higher availability, you want to deploy across AZs which would bring the added network transfer cost.
Besides pricing, read and negotiate terms. Following could be important to your organization - non-consent IP right, one way uncap indemnity (you are indemnifying AWS), check limitation of liability with respect to your risk profile.
The breadth of services available.
Hybrid cloud model is the method even under one vendor primary and one vendor backup. However storage cost could drive hybrid difficulty. And when storage is in PB then there is the issue of time to transfer the data between providers + cost.
Suggest compare support costs between cloud providers.