Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

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.

I use the solution in my company since the front end of my application is deployed on Amazon Elastic Container Service. The back end of the application was deployed on Amazon EC2 for microservices. The front-end and microservices, like shipments, inventories, and a few other areas, are deployed on Amazon Elastic Container Service.

First and foremost, my company uses AWS Fargate, which is easy to handle considering that it is taken care of by AWS, especially in areas like troubleshooting. Triggering a deployment manually is very simple with Amazon Elastic Container Service since, in our company, we have to go to the particular service, update the service manually, and check the box called force a new deployment, which would trigger a deployment on all the services. Even if the deployment has to be done manually, it is not a tedious task as it is easy. The product has a concept called task definition, which makes it easy to handle environment variables.

Though not an issue in the product, one of the areas of concern that I have noticed is related to how the tool works. After the load balancer gets attached to Amazon Elastic Container Service clusters, I can't modify, remove, or replace it later. The tool would have been better if there was an option to replace a load balancer. If anyone attaches a wrong load balancer during the creation phase, it has to be brought down and created once again from scratch.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for two and a half to three years. My company is a customer of Amazon.

It is a highly stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In terms of scalability, the product has autoscaling features along with Amazon EKS, which helps scale up the resources in an organization. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is difficult for me to keep track of the number of users of the solution in my company because we have multiple groups in our organization who use it for integration purposes.

Earlier, the support team had some issues. Once or twice, I found a delay in the response time from the technical support's end due to a lack of resources or some other issues. Lately, I haven't experienced any issues with the product's support team since they have been very responsive.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase requires some level of understanding. I can vouch for the fact that AWS provides good and detailed documentation. Users don't have to go anywhere to understand any concept related to the product, and all they need to do is follow AWS documentation line-by-line to become professional at whatever services they want to use.

Although AWS has successfully captured over 60 percent of the market in the cloud part, the tool is competitively way cheaper for the resources it provides compared to the other solutions.

The tool's scheduler enhances your application's scalability and reliability since, with AWS Fargate, during the scale-up process, if my company runs 50 or 70 tasks or services and in case of failures or any problems during the runtime, AWS responsibly takes care of the problematic area. All I need to do is to push the code while managing the application side. At an infrastructure level, things are managed by Amazon with AWS Fargate. I am very confident about the performance and reliability that the product offers since the infrastructure part is taken care of by AWS.

The security measures in the product that are the most effective stems from the fact that it provides separate policies to be attached to your clusters at a task execution role level, and if it is not made manually, then you won't be able to access ECS tasks through a command line, making it a highly secure area.

Amazon Elastic Container Service, with other AWS services, streamlines our company's workload since during the creation of a task definition, you need to mention the task execution role, which is nothing but an IAM role, which will provide the privileges and the permissions as to what is required at your end.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

To understand the initial stages can be easily understood by the user, it is good to go through its documentation and learn about the solution before buying the product. The struggle would be with the learning part and not the implementation part.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

The tool helps us with maneuverability. Its most valuable feature is autoscaling. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service needs to improve the menu design. It needs to improve deployment with better documentation. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service's stability a nine out of ten. 

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

Amazon EC2 Container Service's deployment is complex. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service has helped us save time. 

The tool's cost is good. 

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a nine out of ten. 

Amazon Elastic Container Service is where we deploy our microservices. All of our banking services are hosted on Amazon Elastic Container Service.

The time to market that we need to deliver the solutions for our customers was drastically reduced because of Amazon Elastic Container Service.

Scalability and availability are the most valuable features of Amazon Elastic Container Service. It removes a lot of work from our infrastructure team to ensure that the structure is available when we have a pick, for example, of the utilization from our clients. In case of problems, we also have the recycling of the services that are conducted and managed by the AWS environment.

The solution's pricing could be improved. With Amazon Elastic Container Service, you spend a lot of money in the long term.

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

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

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is very easy.

Amazon Elastic Container Service saves our organization time and money in the short term.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is a very good solution if you are in a startup business and need to deploy things faster and comply with the regulators. I would recommend Amazon Elastic Container Service to other users.

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

I use servers to make web services, mainly to complement the WordPress solution.

EC2 and anything else on the AWS container is reliable. I can trust it.

It's quick and easy to have the solution working.

The solution needs to be more usable. It has a node interface, and it would be better if it could be renewed. It's the same thing with WordPress, Google, and any other company doing the same thing. It would be very good if Amazon went to the front by winning that war of usability.

I've used Amazon EC2 Container Service for 20 years.

The solution is much more stable than IBM. I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

Amazon Container Service is all about scalability. You should use AWS instead of something else.

It was straightforward to deploy the solution.

The ROI depends on the business. Big companies see an ROI with it, and small companies don't.

The solution is pricey. There are three things a solution can be or have: it can be quick, cheap, or have quality. We can't have three at the same time. If you have money and time, you have quality, which is the case with Amazon. Amazon is pricey, but we can do things quickly, and there's quality.

However, you can have the free tier with Amazon, where it will work for small companies, but only for a short time. If you only want a small VPS, use Google, which will be free forever.

If choosing the solution, contact an expert. I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a ten out of ten.