Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Amazon S3.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
We need the mapping to Windows. That feature is needed in S3. That feature is in the Azure cloud where we can map it like a drive. We can map the cloud storage to the effort driving our Windows PC. But Amazon is not providing that feature for the S3 solution. In the next release I would like to see mapping on the Windows machine. In Windows, there are drives right in volumes. We need to map these Amazon S3 storage to the Windows. That usually is available in the Azure. I would like to have that in the Amazon as well.
When we need to find the queries there is no user interface, it is the only textual format that is bulky. If we need some data we will use Athena for queries and we will get results. When comparing this solution to others, such as DataDog, they provide a wonderful UI, and user-friendly dashboards, and many other features that this solution is lacking. We have found that the query takes too much time to process and it is quite difficult to receive the data.
The only pain point is migrating the life cycle policy because if someone is a newbie, they cannot easily create the life cycle policy. This is because there are multiple, additional ways. If I want to store data for one month, they have the option to Glacier over it. With Glacier, you have addition policies for one year or four years. The option will not be there. So you would need to use a UI process over it.
I don't really have any pain points with this product. There isn't really anything to complain about. It does what we need it to do. Technical support could have a faster response time. They are a bit slow right now.
Whatever enhancement they could include in terms of object storage and limitations, would be an improvement. There is a five terabyte limitation size, and in today's world with the data size doubling all the time, anything extra would be helpful. We really need a very, very huge file system, a big data system to accommodate all this content.
The security model can be improved as it is a bit confusing. The access speed could be faster.
Overall, I don't think there's anything that needs to be improved. The console could be improved - it's not very user-friendly for non-technical guys and the cost has to improve. It does not give us a clear picture of the total cost. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate it an 8.
I would like to see translations or description context for the options. It is difficult for me as a consultant to explain the science, or the configuration processes, or why I am using this much power or the size to the customer. It takes some effort to describe how you got to that sizing. We have some problems with connectivity. In my country, most of the issues we have are with stable connections rather than stable platforms. In the next release, I think that it would be good to have wizards that would update into specific applications, for example, a one-touch configuration in Pagemaker. It would mean that you don't need to activate S3, and then have to do a configuration on the page. You would want a single wizard that would do all of the necessary applications.
Some of the areas that could be improved are the dashboard, and to have a richer functionality. Because there are so many services offered by Amazon, they can do anything. If we were to add anything it wouldn't be anything inside of it, but services on top of it. There is a concern with security. In one of our main use cases, we prescreen, but we have to create a gateway or layer on top of it to access the data in that particular case. Because the user accesses the data, they to be authenticated before doing so. It indicates that the users of our systems need to gain access to this data. Amazon allows access with this mechanism called Presigned URL. We need to share files, so we upload the file and request a link from Amazon, which allows you to share with anyone. The link is signed, which is the reason it is called Presigned. However, this sign is not compliant with internet regulations. In our company, we are concerned with privacy regulations. In the United States, there is a law and regulation that is called HIPPA. It's a regulation on how to keep patients' data private and how to protect it. Amazon S3 is eligible for HIPPA compliance, but not with the Presigned URL. This is very important and because we cannot use the Presigned URL, we have to build the layer on top of Amazon S3. As a result of having to do this, we lose performance, availability, and we lose some benefits of Amazon S3. A feature that should be included is to find and provide a HIPPA compliant solution for the Presigned URL.
What do you like most about Amazon S3?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the community!