University Admissions Application and AWS Operations
Ampity improved an admissions-supporting application, moved it from conventional servers to AWS, and supported its cloud environment with security remediation,...
[Context] An application tied to a critical university process
Admissions depends on both the application and the environment that runs it. A code problem can interrupt the same process as an infrastructure problem. For this university, Ampity's engagement covered both: application development and improvement, a move from conventional servers to AWS, and continuing cloud support.
The institution's identity is withheld. This account describes the scope recorded in Ampity's customer story, not a public customer endorsement. It does not claim a measured reduction in admissions processing time, a savings percentage, or a particular availability level.
[Scope] Application work and cloud work together
Ampity developed the application, reviewed it for application and security issues, remediated findings and cleaned up code. The cloud scope included the move to AWS, infrastructure setup and ongoing support, with cost and security improvements in the AWS environment.
These were connected responsibilities within the admissions-supporting application. They were not a claim to operate every university system or to replace the institution's ownership of its admissions process.
| Area | Work documented in the engagement |
|---|---|
| Application | Development, application and security review, remediation and code cleanup |
| Migration | Move from conventional servers to AWS and infrastructure setup |
| Operations | Ongoing cloud support, cost optimization and security improvements |
| Capacity and backups | EC2 and RDS right-sizing, stopping unused compute and scheduled AMI backups |
[Delivery] Changes to the AWS environment
The documented operations work included four concrete changes.
EC2 right-sizing. Compute capacity was matched to what the workload used. The case does not supply instance sizes or a before-and-after utilization series, so it would be misleading to turn this into a numerical efficiency claim.
RDS right-sizing. Database capacity was adjusted to demand. This is a separate part of the work from adjusting application compute. No database engine, storage configuration or measured performance improvement is asserted here.
Stopping unused compute. Instances that were not needed were stopped. This describes the action completed, not a claim that all environments were scheduled or that every idle resource was eliminated.
Scheduled AMI backups. Backups were taken on a schedule rather than manually. A backup schedule is not proof of a tested recovery time or recovery point. Those measurements are not supplied by the customer story and are not claimed here.
[Outcome] What the engagement established
The account records an admissions-supporting application moved to AWS, with application remediation and ongoing attention to cloud cost, security and reliability. Ampity's founder described smoother admissions operations. That is a qualitative account of the engagement, not an independently measured service-level result.
The useful lesson is the responsibility boundary: the same engagement addressed the application and its AWS environment. It allowed code health, capacity, security findings and backup operations to be considered against the process they supported, rather than described as unrelated projects.
[Application] What another institution can take from this case
For a similar engagement, start by identifying the process that cannot tolerate disruption and the application that supports it. Review application issues and cloud operating risks together, then agree the scope and acceptance criteria for the first milestone.
This is guidance for a future assessment, not a description of additional work performed for this institution. Another university may need a different migration path, backup strategy or operating model. The scope should follow its application dependencies, admissions calendar, access controls and recovery requirements.
[Review] Evidence to request for a similar migration
A university considering similar work can use the following review questions before accepting a migration milestone. They are proposed acceptance checks, not a retrospective claim that each check was recorded in this engagement.
Ask the application owner which admissions actions must still work after the move. Agree representative transactions and who will confirm their results. Identify dependencies such as external integrations and credentials before assuming that moving the application also moves everything it needs.
Ask the operations owner to explain the capacity decision separately for compute and database resources. A smaller resource is not an improvement if the application can no longer support the required demand. Record the workload, observation period and operating constraint behind a proposed change.
For backups, request both the schedule and evidence of a restore exercise. AWS describes how an EBS-backed AMI captures an instance and its attached EBS volumes. That service documentation explains the mechanism; it does not validate this customer's recovery capability. Application data consistency, the database recovery approach and a tested return-to-service procedure require their own review.
Finally, agree who responds to an application issue after migration. A cloud account handover and a working admissions process are different acceptance decisions. Keep the agreed responsibilities alongside the release record so the institution knows where to raise a problem.
Explore AWS consulting and migration, or share the application and operating constraint with Ampity.