Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service to take complete workloads to the cloud for various applications.

Amazon EC2 Container Service has reduced our infrastructure cost. We migrate some workloads from our on-premises data center to the cloud, where it runs as per the requirement, and we don't have to pay upfront. This helps reduce both the CapEx and OpEx. Some of those managed services help us to reduce the OpEx. On-demand computing efficiently manages the CapEx.

Amazon EC2 Container Service has multiple valuable features like load balancers and autoscalers. Amazon EC2 Container Service is easy to compute.

The existing domain-joined capability the solution provides during the initial boot-up of the compute should be streamlined and made a little robust. If that fails, you cannot do it again. That part doesn't have any resilience.

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

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service an eight out of ten for stability.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a scalable solution. Around 200 users are using Amazon EC2 Container Service in our organization, and we do not plan to increase the usage.

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service ten out of ten for scalability.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is fairly easy and not that complex. I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment is very fast and takes around a minute. We follow the infrastructure as a whole, run our pipeline, and deploy the solution. One person can handle multiple deployments, even a thousand deployments.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price, I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service’s pricing a four or five out of ten.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is deployed on the government AWS cloud.

Users can use Amazon EC2 Container Service for their computing. The robustness of the solution is good. And there are different pricing models, and users can evaluate them depending on the workload. The computing application needs must be evaluated before you choose the solution.

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

The solution helps streamline the entire process for the development and production environments.

I use the tool to manage containerized applications. What I like about Amazon ECS is the interface it provides. Although the configurations can be extensive, such as setting up auto-scaling groups and configuring separate tasks and services for each application, the interface makes it manageable.

We are a small team. I'm the only one handling cloud deployments. We're talking about around 20 to 30 people, not more than a hundred.

I've contacted Amazon for this product, mainly for troubleshooting issues. However, I haven't reached out to them for anything else. The company's founder handles negotiations for pricing and other matters, so I'm not involved in that aspect.

Positive

The solution's deployment is easy since the steps are given in the documentation. I rate it an eight out of ten. It can be completed in a day. 

The tool initially required a significant amount of development time on the backend, but in terms of efficiency, it's a one-time effort. Once set up, it can be used for a long time, and maintenance doesn't require much effort. I rate it an 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.

The product enables users to easily run and manage containers on scalable infrastructure.

Amazon ECS allows users to deploy and manage container applications like microservices or web applications on Amazon clusters. It's easy to install and designed for AWS targets, serving as a serverless container platform. It offers features such as automatic scanning, load balancing, and service discovery to help users manage their container applications.

Amazon ECS comprises components like task definition, which acts as a blueprint for applications, specifying details like the Docker image, CPU, and memory resources. Containers are lightweight, portable executable packages containing everything needed to run an application or service. It defines how containers should be managed, ensuring the desired number of tasks are running and automatically scaling based on demand.

The best thing about Amazon ECS is that it's a fully managed service. It offers scalability, high availability, cost-effective flexibility, and integration with other AWS services. Additionally, it provides some security features.

We noticed a problem where our container doesn't always run, and the traffic in our secured license exceeds 100%, leading to increased container costs. We are working to understand and reduce this traffic to control costs.

I have been working with the product for two years. 

Amazon ECS is used by seven users in my company. 

My company uses GKE and Amazon ECS. We chose the product as per client requirements. 

The tool's deployment is easy. 

Amazon ECS is expensive. 

In our company, the process for creating Amazon ECS services involves having a repository in it. If there's a need to edit variables or resources, we pull the repository to our local terminal, make the necessary edits, and push the changes back to the repository. Subsequently, we deploy using Jenkins. You can easily define the number of containers running in your cluster and manage them. Autoscaling and load balancing are handled automatically by AWS. 

We create clusters, which are logical groups of container systems where tasks can be placed. We can create clusters using the AWS Management Console, AWS CLI, or SDKs. During the setup, we decide whether to use an ECS-optimized Amazon Machine Image for launching instances or create a launch configuration for an autoscaling group.

I rate the product a seven 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.

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.