Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

The Amazon EC2 Container Service involves lifting and shifting the on-site environment into AWS. It's a simple copying of your applications since you don't create new virtual machines.

Amazon EC2 Container Service offers great flexibility with a wide range of options, allowing you to choose powerful, smaller, bigger, faster, secure, or dedicated machines based on your needs. We have no concerns about EC2 containers, and the only potential downside is if you move your data center to AWS without leveraging advanced features like serverless or automatic scaling, it might be more expensive. The key is to optimize and make use of all the cloud features for cost efficiency and improved performance.      

For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for the past six years.

Amazon EC2 Container Service (EC2) has a very high uptime, typically reaching 99.99%. For customers seeking even higher reliability, there are even more options. However, this decision is left to the customer, mirroring the considerations one makes in a physical data center environment. 

I would rate the scalability ten out of ten. In specific AWS regions like Paris, which is widely utilized by the French community, there might be limitations on available choices due to high usage. While Paris region availability might be constrained, other locations such as Frankfurt and London are generally unaffected. In such cases, obtaining an EC2 from a different location is possible, it may impact data transfer times between regions, and delays in data flows.

It is very easy and almost takes few minutes.

You have the option to either handle it independently or involve an integrator and even manual setup is possible. Please keep in mind that engaging an integrator may lead to the need for a CI/CD pipeline to manage various aspects required by the guardrails, particularly when dealing with Container Tower. Clarify the details to the integrator because it is crucial to prevent repeated blockages by control tower, avoiding frustration. Also make the integrator responsible for Container Tower or have them build pipelines checked with Container, as this can also be effective. In most cases, trying to proceed without proper communication and understanding can make the process challenging.

We have seen advantages in our companies through its pay-as-you-go model, allowing us to pay only for the resources they use. This flexibility allows to have a cost-effective design based on actual requirements. If a powerful machine is needed only once a year, it can be built and utilized exclusively during that period, eliminating the need to maintain it for the entire year. This approach ensures minimal costs for significant resources, making the cloud setup easy and efficient.

Licensing can be purchased directly from AWS or used with existing licenses, depending on the company's preference. The licensing structure is complex and depends on factors such as machine size, number of processors, and Container size. 

Companies have dedicated staff members managing license considerations full-time to find the most cost-effective options. Also, I have seen some companies opt for a combination of AWS and Azure, using more of Azure for Microsoft licenses due to potentially lower costs compared to AWS.

When utilizing Amazon EC2 Container Service (EC2), don’t treat it like a local data center machine, as this can be more expensive. The key lies in utilizing the cloud features effectively, such as stopping capacity during non-usage periods, like nights or weekends. The product is extremely useful and I would rate it eight out of ten.

My company deals with Amazon EC2 Container Service as a performance container management service and fault management system for telecommunication networks.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability. In terms of storage resources, the solutions need to be quick to provide users with options for growth. Based on prediction, the product sometimes allows you to grow or scale up quickly.

Pricing is an area of concern where improvements are required since the cloud services provided by AWS are not cheap. Due to the expensive nature of the cloud services provided by AWS, many people have opted for an on-premises deployment model.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's upgradability is an area with shortcomings requiring improvements.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for around three years. I am a system integrator, and my company provides software products.

My company has faced some stability issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten. The last time my company faced some issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service was when Amazon was involved in some internal work and did not bother informing users about it.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company requires Amazon EC2 Container Service to deal with its clients, mostly telecommunication companies with around 1,000 to 5,000 employees.

The solution's technical support was poor. I rate the technical support a two out of ten. My company usually tries to figure out and resolve the issues related to Amazon EC2 Container Service even though we are not well-versed with the solution. The solution's technical support team's issue stems from the fact that they look in the wrong places and are not knowledgeable enough to help users resolve issues.

Negative

Amazon EC2 Container Service is the platform with which I have had the most experience to date. Previously, I worked with clusters in an on-premises setup and didn't use a container platform.

I rate the product's implementation phase a five on a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. I don't see anything I can't do in the product, especially once I figure out how to do it.

The product's deployment phase can be completed in a few hours.

My company's clients have noticed a return on investment and benefits from the use of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

The more you use Amazon EC2 Container Service, the more you pay.

I rate the product's pricing an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. Even though I don't pay for the solution, I have observed and seen the product's price and budget based on the bills paid by my company and our customers.

Due to the issues faced by my company with Amazon EC2 Container Service's upgradability, we plan to move to Amazon EKS. OpenShift also has some functionality that helps with the upgradability part.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is not difficult to manage.

I recommend those who plan to use Amazon EC2 Container Service to initially go with a PoC phase and also look into the cost-benefit analysis over a long-term period before buying the product.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We had a new product, and we used Amazon Elastic Container Service to do a proof of concept for it.

We used Amazon Elastic Container Service for deploying a web application.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable. We didn't do a stress test on the solution, but I could say it cost much less as compared to EC2. We would have needed three or four EC2 instances for the same application, but we could do it on a single incident EC2 container.

Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult. You need to have experience in order to set it up.

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is good. I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten for scalability.

Since we took a docker image from the Amazon repository, the solution's deployment was done in a day or two.

If you want to scale without the traditional methods, the solution is a bit cost-effective.

We had virtualized the solution, and we were using it on EC2.

The solution has a great offering for docker images. We didn't have to work from scratch. We could go to the marketplace and directly get the image from there.

Overall, I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten.

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service for application and containerization.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a stable solution.

Amazon EC2 Container Service should be made easier to use.

Amazon EC2 Container Service should include more enterprise project management features, typically available in an OpenShift environment.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for four years.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a stable solution.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a scalable solution. Around 2,000 users are using Amazon EC2 Container Service in our organization.

The solution's initial setup is moderately complex.

It takes a month to set up Amazon EC2 Container Service. We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is an expensive solution.

Around 100 staff members are required for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

Overall, I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for Jenkins web server, CloudFormation, and TerraForm. I use it for Linux and Mac servers. The list is endless.

The most valuable feature is the volume size they offer. Where I'm from, having a lot of storage is a problem, and the cloud provides you that much more. You could set a volume of maybe 20 gigabytes. If you use the right AMI ID, you get it at no extra cost. You just have to be very diligent when you're setting it up.

Another thing I love is the variety of AMI IDs that are out there, from Ubuntu to Amazon Linux to Mac and so on. There are so many AMI IDs that can service whatever problem the client has.

EC2 is not self-explanatory enough. If, while the cloud control tower is set up, they could give a lot of explanations as to what's happening, it would be very easy. For example, if you don't know an AMI ID, you could launch an instance, security group, and all those things. Without experience, you might set up an AMI ID that will cost you, or you may set up a site that's going to cost you, and you will incur a lot of costs, and you won't get to go free without paying the money that you've been charged. If Amazon had more explanations, clients could understand the solution better.

I've been using it for almost three years now.

I give EC2 a nine out of ten because I have had some programs when deploying the Jenkins server because of some configuration issues. When we traced back the configurations, we saw that the configurations were okay, but EC2 had problems. Some glitches happen once in a while that Amazon needs to solve.

I rate EC2's scalability a ten out of ten. It's the best.

The initial setup is straightforward, but you need some experience with it. I don't see any other complications apart from a new user not being able to use it without experience.

The solution doesn't take a lot of time to deploy. Once you pass a few checks and the installations, it takes a maximum of two minutes to deploy, depending on your Internet's latency.

EC2 is cheap based on two main factors: the AMI you're using and the volume size. You need to be wary of those things. If you use the free ones, you will not incur any cost. But if you increase the sizes, you incur costs to your accounts.

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a nine-point five out of ten. When using EC2, you need to have the bare minimum of experience so that when you run into certain errors, you can solve them before they get out of hand. Also, be wary of the services they add to your account, for example, the volume size, the AMI, and the configurations you add to your EC2 server. If you don't consider these, you will incur many costs. I have a friend who incurred almost $1,000 on EC2. He messed around with EC2, so he had to pay a lot.

I use the product for Azure folders, which act as a shared folder between the servers. I utilize it as a network file system for storing logs and managing software across all the servers in various availability zones. I have two instances: one for production and another for QA and testing purposes. I mount this file system across all virtual machines, creating a unified storage solution for logs, outputs, and other data generated by various jobs and tasks. 

Implementing the product has helped me monitor the parameters. I utilize tools like CloudWatch and AWS systems to track these parameters. If any issues arise, I alert our developer team to address and resolve them. The product helps to have a global file system. Also, it helps in data replication from region to region. 

The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac. 

I have been working with the product since 2018. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate Amazon ECS scalability an eight out of ten. 

While implementing the product may initially pose a learning curve, it's not overly difficult.The key is to track progress and adapt to the learning curve.

My boss told me we get good ROI with the tool's use. 

The product's pricing is good. 

I rate Amazon ECS a nine out of ten. 

We use Amazon Elastic Container Service to run containers.

Amazon Elastic Container Service serves the function it's supposed to serve.

The solution's user experience and management are really bad.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is not a user-friendly solution. The process of creating everything in Amazon Elastic Container Service is messy. Everything sits in very different locations, and it's not centralized. For example, their networking sits under EC2. You also need to manage the DNS records, which sit under Route 53.

The deployment configuration is located in one place, and the actual EC2 is located in a different place. You have a lot of components to manage, and every one of them is located in a different place, which makes it disorganized.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for two years.

We never had any issues with the solution's stability, and all the stability issues were user mistakes. When it's that complex, you can make a lot of mistakes. Amazon is doing what they're promising. I can rate the solution a ten out of ten for stability, but the problem is that it's complex. So, you have downtime because of user mistakes.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is a scalable solution. Five people are working with Amazon Elastic Container Service directly, but all our clients are using it.

The solution's initial setup is difficult because you need to be aware of different components in different places.

Amazon Elastic Container Service has a decent price, which is neither cheap nor expensive.

Our company chose Amazon Elastic Container Service because they didn't have the skill set to work with Kubernetes before I joined.

Overall, I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service a six out of ten.

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service for running applications and data.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 Container Service is its flexibility.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for quite a long time.

The solution's stability is almost perfect, but some outages occasionally occur.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is perfect.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

We have seen a return on investment with Amazon EC2 Container Service.

We have to pay a monthly licensing fee for Amazon EC2 Container Service. The solution's pricing is acceptable.

I am using the latest version of Amazon EC2 Container Service. Amazon EC2 Container Service is a cloud-based solution.

I would recommend Amazon EC2 Container Service to other users.

Overall, I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service ten out of ten.