Amazon EKS Reviews

We use Amazon EKS as an APM tool for the environment while migrating the monolithic architecture to microservices architecture. It helps us to test product functionality in a particular environment.

We don’t have to manage a bunch of infrastructure. Additionally, enabling auto-scaling for both outgoing and node work helps us optimize the cost. It has valuable monitoring and insights features as well.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

We have been using Amazon EKS for more than three years.

It is a stable product.

We have 200 Amazon EKS users in our organization. It is a scalable product.

The initial setup process takes a few minutes to complete. It requires a team of seven executives to work on the deployment.

The product generates a return on investment with the help of OpEx and CaPEx licensing models.

Amazon EKS is expensive.

I rate Amazon EKS a nine out of ten.

The main use case is Cloud and IT applications.

It's a faster solution to adopt on native applications.

I would like to see a cloud setup bank management feature.

I have been using Amazon EKS for six years.

I would rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten.

There is a return on investment.

Before EKS, we evaluated AKS and CKS.

Review the organization's strategy with your strategy, whether it is oriented to the portability of your applications. Overall, I would rate Amazon EKS a nine out of ten.

I use EKS as an application management system and a second application server. It's connected to Amazon RDS. 

EKS has security features that you can't find in competing solutions.

I'm having difficulty getting my AWS clusters to communicate with my local machine. 

I have used EKS for three years.

Amazon EKS is scalable. We have about 20,000 users. 

Setting up EKS is simple compared to OpenShift. It isn't too complex. We have a hybrid setup due to government data rules. I deployed EKS alone.

I rate EKS seven out of 10 for affordability. Amazon EKS costs us $730 a year. 

I rate Amazon EKS nine out of 10.

We run all our microservices across the globe with Amazon EKS. We also use it for development, testing, and maintenance.

In the past, we have faced challenges with scalability and maintenance while running clusters. Amazon EKS is very easy to maintain. So it allows us to focus on our deployment.

The most important aspect of Amazon EKS is that it is easy to set up and very easy to upgrade. So we can focus on maintaining and deploying our microservice. It is also easy to scale and easy to monitor.

Amazon EKS provides very minimum information during the upgrade of the node group. When the upgrade doesn't work well, it doesn't give enough information for us to troubleshoot. So it would be great if Amazon EKS provided more information in such cases. 

Amazon EKS should enable some AIOps.

I have been using Amazon EKS for the past three years.

As a Kubernetes-managed platform, it is pretty stable. You can stabilize the new version when it is available in AWS.

It is easy to set up, and the Amazon EKS control plane accommodates scaling.

Whenever we experience any challenges, we always get a very fast response from AWS support. We are happy with the support provided so far.

We shifted to Amazon EKS because we faced some issues with our old system on OpenShift. OpenShift also has a high license price as compared to Amazon EKS.

We had some challenges at the beginning. It took us a few weeks to get one cluster up. Later, we improved our approach by using Terraform to manage it. Now, we can set up many clusters within one or two hours. We use around 60 clusters now.

We implemented it through our in-house team.

Amazon EKS is very cost-effective. I rate the pricing a ten on a scale of one to ten.

Other teams in the organization are trying to explore Google Kubernetes Engine. However, for our team, AWS is a lot easier. Our team might not move to other cloud providers because running Terraform is very useful for us.

In the internal cluster, we have four hundred people working with Amazon EKS. We have a lot of customers running billions of transactions. Overall, I rate Amazon EKS a nine out of ten.

Amazon EKS is used in containerization, which means that you deploy any application and package it into its own miniature server. Then, store that application in an encapsulated form within a server which is an operating system, and keep it aside so that the repository recurses.

It has always helped me. It is the repository where we store our images.

It's a cluster service. So Amazon EKS is essentially a Kubernetes service, which is a product created by Google and is open-sourced, meaning it can be downloaded and installed on a server in a company's data center without needing the cloud for containerization or microservices. With Kubernetes, you can build and deploy microservice applications within a Kubernetes cluster. So, all your microservices will be running under Kubernetes within a cluster. Kubernetes is what that particular class of software is called, and we refer to it as an orchestration tool. It'll figure out and make sure that your microservice is always available. So, you can go and tell them before starting Kubernetes about the number of properties, files, or variables and issue commands to determine the instances of microservices available, including setting a minimum of one or two instances. To shut down a microservice, you can set the instances to zero. Essentially, Kubernetes allows an organization or anyone to have a cluster of microservices served without needing a cloud. Amazon AWS offers Kubernetes as a service because they found that many people are using Kubernetes.

The microservices appear to be well-made, and I don't have any comments on them as I don't see any flaws. Essentially, each microservice has a substantial ephemeral space available, providing gigabytes of storage. It would be helpful if this default storage allocation could be reduced to avoid the need for excessive resources when running microservices.

The goal and idea behind microservices are to always be available and capable of handling any load, no matter how many requests come through. At times, there might be millions of requests from people. All of these services are great, but I also think it would be useful to have the same technology available in a miniature resource size, enabling the same applications and services to run on a small machine. Increasing resources should enable microservices to handle the demands of the world. I would like to see the technology scale up to the point where individuals can run a service from home even with fewer resources.

I have been using Amazon EKS for about four years, and there is no specific version of the tool because it automatically gets updated. So, the latest version is always available.

I personally prefer this solution to Amazon Fargate and would rate it an eight out of ten.

I use Amazon EKS for telco event monitoring.

My company found Amazon EKS beneficial in terms of the scalability and stability of event monitoring.

What I found most valuable in Amazon EKS is its maturity as a cloud computing technology.

An area for improvement in Amazon EKS is the user experience. The platform could be more user-friendly. Only an expert can manage and use it.

I've been using Amazon EKS for four years.

The stability of Amazon EKS is a ten for me.

Scalability-wise, Amazon EKS is a ten. My team didn't have any problems scaling it.

I had some issues with Amazon EKS. The technical support team found the problems difficult to solve at the time, so support-wise, it's a nine out of ten. Support is not perfect.

Positive

I didn't do the initial setup for Amazon EKS, so I have no idea how easy or difficult it is.

I saw ROI from Amazon EKS.

Amazon EKS has fair pricing. It's better in terms of pricing than other platforms.

I advise anyone planning to use Amazon EKS to do the training because it's initially tough to use the platform.

I rate Amazon EKS as nine out of ten.

It's a great service because we can do a lot of things using it. It's easy to create clusters and services in pods there.

So, the main purpose is to create clusters and services and define some pods there.

We reduced the cost by using one cluster instead of using different services and different virtual machines in a client. So, Amazon EKS helped our organization reduce costs. 

This is the way we can create a cluster because we don't need to pay attention to the control plane. We only need to deploy the services in the worker nodes and configure some configurations, easy configurations, and the cluster is done to be published.

Basically, AWS provides all features that we have prepared.

There is room for improvement in stability. I faced some problems with the App. The problem is actually the app, with the different teams fixing it.

I have been using this solution for 18 months. I work on different projects. Basically, we create a structure and per clients, and we move to another project. So we did different projects for how long of the year.

We are currently using version 1.24, but we are migrating to the latest version, which is 1.28.70.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. I faced some problems with the App. The problem is actually the app with the different teams fixing it, but I would say the Kubernetes - it's ten. The service is ten. But if everything is considered, it's eight.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is perfect. Moreover, more than one hundred users have access per hour. 

We use this solution every day. Thus, we use the solution to its maximum potential. 

We did the research for Azure, but all the structure and other resources were applied in AWS, so we kept it in the same provider.

We also used a local structure, but we're at a short time. And the infrastructure had already been done. I only need to support the application. It's full.

The thing that takes more time to be constructed with the code is minutes and hours to provide the EKS code, but with the structure is really fast.

Basically, it used the code. They used the TerraForm code because we work with ESA, and, basically, the most important part for us is the code.

We used the help of a third party, like, the partners of Amazon. 

We required four people for the deployment process. However, the maintenance depends on the number of clusters and resources. So, two people are enough for the maintenance of the solution. 

I would rate the pricing model a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is very expensive.

It was rather expensive; compared to GCP and Azure, it's a little more expensive. The price can be a problem for small-sized businesses. 

There are no additional costs to the standard license. 

So I work as a DevOps engineer. But basically, using TerraForm or other tools like that, I never worked with another provider as Google and Microsoft. So, basically, I use AWS. 

Actually, there are a lot of reports that I use every day. So we use tools related to that, like load balancers, ECRs, and EKS— so different resource things.

It's a great service. Some services are more expensive compared to other providers. But in general, it's the best option for medium or large enterprises.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I have clients that run on Kubernetes engines. 

The tool works well with the nodes in AWS. It's scalability is also good in terms of architecture. 

I am not impressed with the tool's Amazon console. It also needs to add security features. 

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. 

The tool's premium support is good. 

Positive

The solution's deployment gets completed in minutes. You need one DevOps engineer to maintain the solution. 

The solution is pricey. The tool's pricing is monthly. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. It is the best platform for Kubernetes. The tool is also compliant. You need a demo to get started with it.