Amazon EKS Reviews

I usually work with AWS tools focused on infrastructure deployments, onboarding new customers to the cloud, and offering the best practices across infrastructure, networking, security, monitoring, and availability, discussing high availability solutions and implementing the best practices over these. That's mainly my scope. For the development part, when it comes to services such as functions, Lambda functions and X-Ray and development services, I actually interfere with them in the deployment part and not for the configuration or the development part.

I've built a tool that can manage all these resources, whether it's on Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services or Oracle itself. This tool is efficient when it comes to assessments, assessing the environments for customers, getting the best security practices and measurements across the environment the customer has, having a cost optimization component that can be used to optimize the cloud environment. It covers automated deployments that you use with a user interface, so you don't have to write any code while deploying complex scenarios.

Regarding my experience with Amazon EKS, I have a complete solution for deployment as well. The tool is really powerful and can be used to do various things. I'm involved in the infrastructure, networking, and deployment part, so deploying these resources is one of my daily responsibilities. I use this tool to deploy all of these.

The deployment process for Amazon EKS is straightforward; you don't have to do anything basically. You just have to get the right image and the normal operation for Amazon EKS.

The best features of Amazon EKS involve the orchestration, which may be the concerning part of each customer when it comes to Amazon EKS especially. The automation part, the deployment and monitoring part, the security as well, having the connectivity going private or public, or using Kubelet are various aspects that users should be aware of, providing good experience while discussing these options with customers.

The integration capabilities of Amazon EKS seem fine, but it can be challenging using AWS services compared to other cloud providers, for example, Microsoft Azure. From using both platforms, Microsoft Azure offers more simplicity while doing complex deployments. AWS offers the same solutions; however, it seems more complicated when it comes to independent resources, where you need to establish dependencies before doing the actual resource deployment. This part needs an automation layer that already exists with the Microsoft Azure portal, which facilitates everything for the user experience.

I don't see much room for improvement for Amazon EKS; the Kubernetes technology is the same across all cloud providers. Most customers focus on the main common features they will use, such as the monitoring or the orchestration part, which is their main concern when it comes to this service specifically.

I have experience using Amazon EKS for approximately six years.

Regarding technical support from Amazon, I never personally experienced it, but the team I'm handling has faced their support, and they indicated they're quite good, but not on the first level part.

I have definitely seen an ROI with Amazon EKS. I developed a tool for cost optimization that can cover all of these, even with better approaches than the cloud itself. The tool I developed uses the native AWS recommendations, so ROIs and any saving plans that can be offered are included within the cost optimization. However, we've added our experience component upon using these resources as well.

For example, AWS will never tell you that you have to delete a virtual machine or an EC2 instance. However, our report can detect the stopped instances and provide a recommendation for the customer that for cost saving, they can use a backup or snapshot for this machine, and delete it. If they need to restore it, they can do that, or they may have to remove it if they're not using it.

In terms of pricing for Amazon EKS, I think it's quite reasonable. If we compare the cost to other providers, with providers such as Oracle, it will be much higher in cost. When comparing it to Microsoft Azure, it seems similar, with some variations. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Amazon EKS a seven out of ten.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

From AWS, I use many services, but mostly my work revolves around Cloud Native, specifically Amazon EKS. Kubernetes is my area of focus and expertise. Most of my expertise is around Kubernetes and Cloud Native technologies. This is why I don't call myself a full cloud offering expert, but I mostly focus on the Kubernetes usage with other OSS solutions around K8S. It's not really a niche; it's huge.

I handle both application workloads and data ingestion workloads.

Based on my experience, the best features are backed up with extensive security that AWS allows and EKS is firmly integrated into their entire AWS cloud offering. The second feature is the ability to do what we call an in-place upgrade (upgrading an existing cluster), which is a very strong capability. Additionally, the ability to integrate other add-ons such as service mesh exists, but I don't use it heavily. The ability to use all EC2 node options, including GPU options, works quite efficiently.

The freshness of the Kubernetes versions is the most interesting aspect around CSP's Kubernetes offering; it's about how close they are to the latest and greatest of Kubernetes. GCP is the leaders in that area, but Amazon is quite close behind, which is very important.

It is definitely helpful to streamline the application deployment process.

Regarding the flexibility part, if I want to use something such as Kong/Linkerd service mesh or other solutions, most of the CSPs bind you to their own solutions rather than allow other options to be made and integrated with, and this is what I mostly miss in their part.

In terms of built-in observability in Amazon EKS, I know it's mostly about the great integration with AWS itself. When I want to integrate it with any Grafana or Prometheus solution within AWS, things work efficiently with IAM. However, when I want to cross the boundary of the CSP, that becomes an issue. Integrating some open-source solutions works, but I need to work really hard for that.

The major area for improvement I've seen involves deep diving into one CSP with no equivalent solution elsewhere. The most important consideration is about the pricing and the flexibility of moving and building a multi-cloud environment for most customers. The issue is that when CSPs try to lock you in, flexibility becomes the most critical aspect.

Amazon aims to put you in a very Amazon-centric environment, but you need to be aware when you're using Amazon EKS that you're not locked in. The major paradigm for customers with maturity in using cloud solutions  is to avoid vendor lock-in. Most early adopters understand this, but the main mass, such as the banking companies I work with, aren't in the same state of mind; they need to build everything from a Cloud Native perspective with as much OSS as possible.

I am still using all these technologies.

I would rate stability as nine out of ten.

I would rate scalability for Amazon EKS as nine out of ten.

For technical support with a business plan, I would rate it as nine out of ten.

If support is not paid, I would rate it as six out of ten.

This difference is mainly because of the response time.

With business support, I rate the solution overall as nine out of ten.

Positive

Considering the pricing of the product, I think it's affordable because it's mostly about EC2 stuff, and the control plane is not too expensive, taking into account what they do behind the scenes. Managing my own stuff in an on-prem environment helps me say that it's quite inexpensive in that aspect. The control plane is cheap, but the pricing of EC2 remains the same. I mostly don't prefer using EKS Fargate - managed containerized environment because it makes the devops team dumber and allows vendor locked in; it prevents me from managing my own infrastructure - scaling and fine tuning of resources' usage. Using margate as Autopilot in GCP and other products makes me more inclined to be locked in since it provides many features without the need to think much, but eventually, that's how the CSP will lock you in.

The integrations with IAM and Elastic Load Balancing are fundamental aspects. EC2 is the most important integration, and IAM is very strong in Amazon EKS, stronger than in other clouds. However, I need to compare it regularly as this landscape changes daily. The ELB and all the load balancing capabilities are quite strong in Amazon architecture and Amazon EKS architecture as well, so it integrates efficiently. I miss the flexibility to use other options, but I understand why they integrated it so tightly into their platform.

This isn't only an Amazon issue; it also occurs on GCP and other platforms, including Azure.

Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

My main use cases for Amazon EKS are securing the clusters and providing mesh gateways between the clusters.

The features that I find useful in Amazon EKS are Istio, Webhooks, service accounts, and ReplicaSets with different service accounts and accounts that we work with.

The main benefits that I received from using Amazon EKS are that it is a managed cluster and offers simplicity.

I am not the right person to ask what could be improved in Amazon EKS to make this tool better for the next release. A continuation of the managed pieces would be beneficial because there is no integration of clusters. They are all separate with no real managed cluster type of capability.

I have been working with Amazon EKS for about 3 and 1/2 to 4 years.

The initial setup for Amazon EKS is not straightforward. Kubernetes is not an easy technology because there are many technologies in the cluster. You need to understand infrastructure code to deploy it and understand all of the requirements alongside it. You cannot simply request deployment of EKS clusters as it does not work that way.

I would rate the setup for Amazon EKS as a three because I need to have other technologies and other tool sets to make it work. I cannot just go through Amazon's console and request a three-node cluster deployment because that does not work.

Regarding stability, Amazon EKS is stable. Once it is up, it works. I would rate it as a nine.

For scalability, Amazon EKS is scalable. I would rate it as a nine.

I have never contacted customer support for any issues on Amazon EKS.

Neutral

The solutions I evaluated before working with Amazon EKS include Grafana, Prometheus, K9s, Istio, and Consul.

The main benefits in Amazon EKS compared to those tools are that it is a different tool set completely, and they provide better visibility and connectivity.

The initial setup for Amazon EKS is not straightforward. Kubernetes is not an easy technology because there are many technologies in the cluster. You need to understand infrastructure code to deploy it and understand all of the requirements alongside it. You cannot simply request deployment of EKS clusters as it does not work that way.

I would rate the setup for Amazon EKS as a three because I need to have other technologies and other tool sets to make it work. I cannot just go through Amazon's console and request a three-node cluster deployment because that does not work.

I suggest understanding the entire form before understanding Kubernetes. I would rate Amazon EKS as a seven out of ten because Kubernetes across all CSPs is complicated. I do not think it is an easy technology to give it anything more than a seven.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I deal with application development. I have used AWS services for configuring elastic search, deploying in pods, and using the CI/CD pipeline with Jenkins to build and deploy applications.

Amazon EKS allows upscaling and downscaling by reallocating resources. It is possible to configure everything, monitor applications, and perform routing in pods, securing the application with whitelisting. Datadog can be used to trace applications for performance issues or errors. It is an effective platform for cloud operations on AWS, similar to its counterpart on Azure.

There is room for improvement in making Amazon EKS less error-prone when writing on the YAML file. A UI could help generate config files, simplifying the process for developers who are not architects. It is very time-consuming, and companies often expect developers to do everything, which can be overwhelming.

I have used AWS for three or four years, specifically for Amazon EKS for two years.

It is not easy to configure Amazon EKS, and it requires very detailed attention to configuration and deployment. It can be error-prone and time-consuming to redeploy until a stable configuration is achieved.

Amazon EKS is effective for scalability, providing features for upscaling and downscaling resources as needed.

Their technical support team is good, but they do not instruct on what to do. Having to know what questions to ask is essential. The documentation is adequate but could include more practical insights.

Neutral

The pricing structure is beneficial for large companies who pay for what they use, but it is not affordable for startups. Offering a free version could help small companies.

Overall, Amazon EKS is a great technology, but the knowledge required to use it is scarce. It is a skill in itself, and developers must undertake multiple roles, which can be difficult. I rate Amazon EKS a seven because it is not easy for developers to configure without a solid base of knowledge.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The main reasons for using Amazon EKS in our use were third-party solutions that were distributed as Helm charts. We were using Rancher to manage multi-cloud deployment for unification. We are also using it for evaluation purposes, building customer pilots and prototypes. Sometimes it is easy to make the build chain run through and come out as images and deploy them into Kubernetes.

It completely depends on use case. If you have got a very dynamic or a requirement to scale very fast with nodes, then Amazon EKS is a very good choice because you have got that reach and the ability to scale quickly. But if you have got a fairly static load, it becomes quite expensive quite quickly. They are expensive CPU cycles.

The main benefit of Amazon EKS is its rapid deployment. The fact that we can deploy it very quickly with infrastructure as code and then tear it down again when we are finished.

There is no real advantage to us from Amazon EKS because the advantage is the fact that we have a unified management product so we can deploy concurrently into multiple clouds and on-prem out of one pane of glass. That is the key thing there. As far as the development and presentation, sometimes it is easy just to load it up through kube control, sometimes you put it through a GUI control in front.

We have not been using it from the point of the application using the IAM. We have been using it because quite often our customers are tied back to usually Entra ID and things like that.

The only concerns I had with Amazon EKS were related to cost, the usual problem you have with cloud. It is fine if you can exploit it for dynamic loads, bring it up, get rid of it again. That is where its strength is. You pay for that premium, but as far as running the thing under constant load, it is a very expensive way of deploying.

In the early days, there were a couple of vulnerabilities exploited from the single control plane per region. So there is nothing stopping me deploying multi-region, and that means multiple control planes. So I could deal with that, the infrastructure handled the criticality. The only thing that I could possibly run into a problem with, which I have not had to at this point, but architecturally, is with regulated technologies, banks, that sort of stuff where you cannot be single provider sensitive.

We have been dealing with it from the beginning almost, since 2019.

Only in the past I think it had issues. The fact that regions only had a single control plane left a little bit of vulnerability in there, certainly in the early days, but I do not think that matters now. They seem to have solved that.

I had no problem. It was stable. Very stable.

It was very easy to scale.

The current stuff I am working with has been Kubernetes and building out operational software using Kubernetes. I was actually reviewing Nutanix as an option for some of the stuff I was building out.

Mainly on-prem, we are doing production work with a number of customers. We support them, we run an operational arm as well. I have been involved in platforming on Kubernetes, but we happily support any variant. We are cloud agnostic. So these distributions, we would use Amazon EKS or AKS, but not for long.

The driver in Rancher, as long as I do not have anything extremely different or complex, works completely the same whether I am driving the application onto Amazon EKS or onto a local on-prem.

We have not been using the automated patching. If we were in anger, we do not run the stuff long enough in Amazon EKS at the moment. Really, it is just up in demo and then torn down again. A lot of the stuff is being driven from other automation anyway, more infrastructure as code stuff. So that actually just gets driven completely in there.

I think that Amazon, every other provider, is adapting to the changes in the market now because the major cloud benefits are now fully saturated. Nobody else is going in for those benefits. They are starting to hit the reality of regulated technologies that are high value cannot be under a single provider. So a single cloud provider is not sufficient to support critical industry anymore. You have to have either multiple cloud or hybrid just to meet regulation in the future. So that constrains some of the flexibility. But the clouds are all working towards more on-prem extension, that sort of thing to make it more feasible.

I would rate Amazon EKS a six out of ten. I have a particular penchant for not actually overscoring anymore because of the way that people use this stuff. In other words, I consider adequate doing what it says they claim it to do. So that is a five or a six as they did what they said they would do. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what we agreed. I paid for it, they delivered it. I am satisfied.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I use Amazon EKS to provide the computing power for my applications. We have over thirty clusters in Amazon EKS. Our team uses Amazon EKS to deploy new applications using Helm and to manage our infrastructure. We use Amazon EKS to scale and deploy more applications using different namespaces. Amazon EKS services help us provide clusters where we deploy APIs, services, cron jobs, and other applications to support our services.

The features I find most valuable in Amazon EKS include the VPC CNI, which provides networking inside the cluster, and the EBS CSI driver, which is an example of the add-ons used with Amazon EKS. Kube-proxy for DNS is also a valuable feature. The features we use for managing container applications, like scheduling and scaling, simplify our use of Amazon EKS.

I would like to see improvements in the management capabilities that are native to AWS for Amazon EKS. Our current use involves using a different tool to administer the management, and I believe enhancing this aspect would be beneficial.

I have been using Amazon EKS for four or five years, mostly in financial services.

During the initial setup, I needed to learn about Docker, networking, and microservices, which was a challenge as I didn't have a background in microservices. My first application took three months to deploy, but now, with automation and CI/CD, we can deploy cycles of twenty applications swiftly. Initially, two people were required to deploy Amazon EKS.

Amazon EKS is very stable, and when properly configured, I rate it ten out of ten. In my notes, it's a nine. I did experience some challenges with network stability but was able to resolve them with AWS technical support.

We use the Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA) to provide elasticity to our applications. This allows us to scale our applications or APIs as needed, offering reliability through the automation of scaling processes. I rate the scalability as higher than eight.

Technical support from AWS for Amazon EKS is excellent. I rate it eight out of ten. Recently, we faced a network issue, and AWS technical support provided guidance to resolve the problem successfully. Their support was crucial for directing our efforts and solving our IP-related issues.

Positive

My first experience with Amazon EKS was difficult, and I would rate the initial setup as two because it was challenging without prior experience in microservices. However, after the initial setup, my perception improved, and I now rate it as five or six.

Two people were necessary to deploy my Amazon EKS.

We are making a significant effort to transform our usage of Amazon EKS, which was previously rated as eight or nine in terms of cost. Now, it stands at six or seven due to optimizing our workload.

Overall, I rate Amazon EKS as a nine out of ten. It's a very stable and reliable product.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I am using Amazon EKS as an integrator.

Regarding Amazon EKS integration with IAM, I do not use it.

To use Amazon EKS as a cloud provider and as a Kubernetes cluster managed by a cloud provider, it offers more benefits because you don't have to configure the cluster on your own. You can use the default configuration and just set the right networking space, set the subnet, and a few other things, but you don't have to raise up or configure your own cluster.

Self-healing nodes help to minimize administrative burdens in the organization. It helps to keep the nodes up and running. Then you can use other solutions to minimize costs or to keep the nodes running most of the time.

You can use Amazon EKS to raise up clusters and deploy applications in the cluster. The cluster is managed by Amazon, so you don't have to configure it. You can use the basic configuration of Amazon, and you don't have to interact with etcd or with the Kubernetes most inner parts. It's more simple to use.

Amazon EKS can give you more flexibility to configure on their own. In general, it's a good product. There are many different products that can fit the needs of the user or the customer in every part of AWS. In Amazon EKS, they can give a class that can be more configurable from the user or expert user rather than just using the default EKS.

Amazon EKS support for AWS tools integration has an impact on application development and management because everything is deployed on the cluster. You have to debug the various pods in Kubernetes. There isn't a direct impact, but there is an impact because everything you deploy through the pipelines goes to the cluster and there you have to integrate the cycle.

The main problem or area for improvement is flexibility in configuration. This is the only concerning part and nothing apart from this.

I have been using solutions similar to Amazon EKS from other vendors. I used GKE from Google, the cluster of Azure, and I also used KMinikube. Of course, it's not the same thing, but in general, it can be compared. For testing, K3s are just different distributions. In general, I have used other cloud providers.

It's quite easy to install Amazon EKS.

In Amazon EKS, I see it as a stable product. I don't see any particular issues in terms of nodes or performance.

I believe Amazon EKS is scalable.

I have never used the technical support from AWS.

Neutral

I see return on investment with Amazon EKS. You can save in terms of time because you can raise up a cluster or more nodes, and you can raise up the storage of the particular node in a few minutes. You don't have to take care of managing the machines directly. There is significant time-saving. You don't have to take care of the rack system because AWS has a team that works that part. You have just to pay. In terms of price saving and money saving, it depends on everything, but in general, you're going to save money.

In general, the price of Amazon EKS is expensive, but it depends a lot on the user knowledge of the tool and how we can manage the cost, which solution offers better, which solutions they can use to reduce the cost. For example, the different VM types, the Preemptible VMs or the Preemptible nodes, or you can pay one time for the use, you can reserve the machines. There are many different ways to reduce the cost.

I see big differences between Amazon EKS and GKE. The way you install the cluster is different. In GKE, when you install the cluster, it raises the nodes for you. In AWS, you can install the cluster and then you have to raise up the node using Auto Scaling Group or whatever. It's more integrated maybe. Also in terms of documentation, Google is different from Amazon.

Regarding the automated patching feature for Kubernetes clusters in Amazon EKS, I don't know any patching feature.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Amazon EKS an eight.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Our typical use case for Amazon EKS is that we have a number of applications and microservices that we host in EKS. We have a separate code base for the infrastructure platform, and the microservice team and the application team will be deploying their microservices on their own. We have configured it in a way that it could be easily accessible for developers as well as the platform engineers; we just platformize things. Earlier, I was using ECS, and the reason we use Amazon EKS is for better adaptation of Kubernetes, fitting our multi-tenant model.

The best features of Amazon EKS are that it is very plain by itself, but we use a number of optimizations, such as Carpenter for scaling and node auto-scaling, and Keda for application and microservices auto-scaling, as an event-based auto-scaler. Additionally, we use Portainer less, and for configuration, we utilize Cert Manager and Istio. It's not only Amazon EKS but a combination of various components within it.

By default, if you just install Amazon EKS, you can deploy your application, but to have it enterprise-ready, you have to configure a number of other things that will boost productivity.

Amazon EKS's deep integration with AWS services, such as IAM and elastic load balancing, has created some challenges. For example, we have something in place already, and there are some issues with enabling FIPS, which is FedRAMP compliant for the load balancers. You cannot change the SSL policy for the load balancer; I am not sure if it has been patched by AWS yet. However, apart from that, we use it effectively, and it is more flexible.

Regarding built-in observability in Amazon EKS, there is CloudWatch and CloudTrail. However, you cannot profile the applications; we can collect logs in S3, but there is no streaming solution available. Only CloudWatch exists, so we use other tools for observability and do not depend solely on CloudWatch, only relying on it for crucial workloads and infrastructure logs.

Amazon EKS can be improved by having the maintenance of Kubernetes versions managed better, as everything is handled by the Kubernetes team and possibly a separate team at AWS. We have to constantly maintain upgrades and ensure EKS add-ons are up-to-date, requiring us to upgrade the Kubernetes version and releases. They could provide a managed service in the backend instead of making customers handle it; we are currently doing it, but it's a regular activity we do per quarter.

I have around six years of experience with Amazon EKS.

Amazon EKS is a stable solution, as it is only available in AWS alone.

It is a scalable solution for us.

Before using Amazon EKS, I was using ECS. I switched from ECS to Amazon EKS because our product design changed. With numerous small services that you don't want to manage the backend infrastructure for, you can easily deploy and let it be with ECS; it is a more straightforward solution. However, considering cost with Amazon EKS, it may be pretty high, but it serves its purpose very effectively without management overhead.

If you are going with Amazon EKS, you must change your deployment strategy and develop applications for Kubernetes, writing deployments and pods, or stateful sets, which provides more flexibility. There are pros and cons to both solutions, and you have to evaluate which will suit your use case. In our situation, we had some applications in ECS as in Amazon EKS, and that was an architectural decision discussed internally within teams.

The initial setup with Amazon EKS was hard initially, but being accustomed to it now, it's not that difficult; it's relatively easy.

We have seen ROI with Amazon EKS; we have a separate team actively working on it. We have cost explorer available, and a bill forecast based on usage allows us to determine whether resources are underutilized or overutilized. You can generate reports and analyze them. I have done this for ECS, but for Amazon EKS, I haven't worked on cost savings directly, as there is a separate team responsible for that.

My experience with pricing for Amazon EKS is limited as there's a separate team for that, and I do not have much knowledge of specifics. However, the pricing is based on the instance type we use in the EKS node group, so it should cover that aspect; their pricing is generally easy to understand in terms of instances.

We are using a cloud deployment model. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Amazon EKS an eight.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Our primary use case is related to our ecommerce solution, which is very high in terms of data in the database and products. It has one hundred thousand first line items. We developed a system connected with AWS services to translate search keywords into different languages and improve search results accuracy on our ecommerce site.

The scalability has really helped us a lot in enhancing the customer experience and ensuring quick results. The ROI is really good, especially when compared with other services on-premises.

Amazon EKS provides good support. The integration and stability are clear and reliable. The scalability is excellent, allowing us to efficiently handle customer experiences and improve operational efficiency.

Sometimes, we face minor connectivity issues. However, it depends on the applications we are using. Improvement might be needed based on different use cases.

We have been using it since 2015.

The stability of Amazon EKS is clear and reliable.

Amazon EKS's scalability is clear and has improved our operational efficiency a lot.

The customer service and support are good, and we have a paid subscription that provides priority support.

Positive

The initial setup was handled by third parties. It involved some complexities, and appropriate inputs were necessary.

We worked with a third-party team for implementation, including many developers.

We did several ROIs, which showed positive results. It's particularly beneficial compared to investing in hardware.

The licensing cost is acceptable.

Before implementing, ensure thorough research and ROI analysis. The implementation should be handled by experienced personnel.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

I am working mostly on AWS infrastructure services, such as EC2, EKS, RDS, CloudFormation, IAM, and CloudWatch. I have around one year of experience with Kubernetes and have been using AWS services continuously for three years. My responsibilities include working on server storage, containerization, monitoring, and access policies.

Simplifies Kubernetes setup and management.AWS handles cluster upgrades, patches, and availability.Seamlessly integrates with AWS services like IAM, CloudWatch, and VPC.Access to advanced networking, security, and monitoring tools.EKS automatically deploys the Kubernetes control plane across multiple AWS Availability Zones for fault tolerance.

EKS incurs an additional management fee ($0.10 per hour per cluster) along with EC2 or Fargate costs.May be expensive for smaller workloads compared to alternatives like AWS ECS.Requires expertise to configure and manage Kubernetes resources effectively.Networking (e.g., setting up VPCs, subnets, and service endpoints) can be complex.Simplifies managing multiple Kubernetes clusters, especially for organizations with hybrid or multi-region setups.Integrated dashboards for Kubernetes metrics, logs, and traces.Simplifies observability without needing third-party tools.

I have around one year of experience using Kubernetes with AWS.

In my project, AWS EKS has shown stability without any issues.

EKS offers excellent scalability, especially compared to Docker Swarm. The ability to scale based on requirements by deploying additional containers is a strong point for Kubernetes.

I have not contacted technical support regarding EKS.

Positive

I have explored Google Kubernetes Service in my personal projects but did not work on any other Kubernetes projects before EKS.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward when using the AWS Management Console. Setting up clusters and nodes is simplified through AWS's interface compared to on-premises. It took approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete the setup.

I do not have specific details on EKS's pricing and licensing compared to other services. However, in general, deploying in the cloud offers lower latency and high availability and reduces manual intervention and responsibility, leading to some operational efficiencies.

I have worked with Google Kubernetes Service in my personal space but have not evaluated others for professional use.

For large-scale enterprise solutions, Kubernetes is recommended due to its scalability. Despite costing considerations, EKS alleviates the burden of procedural complexities, making it suitable for enterprise-level applications.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)