Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

My company uses Amazon EC2 Container Service as a backup.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is very easy to set up. The solution is not that hard to get around for beginners. The solution's setup phase is good, even though you may not have so much knowledge of the platform.

The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for three years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

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

End users are unpredictable, so I think there will be issues in terms of limitations and network issues.

The scalability of the product is fine. I don't use the product's scalability since it is not that high.

I don't intentionally plan to increase the use of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I have experience with OCloud.

The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex.

The solution can be deployed in less than an hour.

The deployment process of Amazon EC2 Container Service depends on why its users want to deploy the product in their environments. Make sure you have your infrastructure and IP setup in place. Once you have all the IPs and your infrastructure setup in place, you will be able to deploy Amazon EC2 Container Service within a few days. EC2 platform provides a very simple interface where you should use the IPs in your router in your virtual machine setup, and then the backup part of the solution should be good to use.

I myself manage the deployment and maintenance processes of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I take care of the solution's deployment phase by myself

There is no need to pay anything towards the licensing costs of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I feel that others should try Amazon EC2 Container Service, but it all depends on what others want to deploy from the platform offered by Amazon. Cost-wise, Amazon EC2 Container Service is an okay product. It is better to look at comparisons before proceeding to move to a vendor for a product.

I rate the overall tool a nine 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 Elastic Container Service to deploy containers.

The solution is easy to scale and implement and provides performance monitoring and management tools.

The more containers there are, the more expensive the solution becomes.

With Amazon Elastic Container Service, we lack full control over the infrastructure. Since it is a managed service for container orchestration, it may limit our control over certain infrastructure functions. This limitation can be a concern if you require deep control over your container or have specific infrastructure requirements.

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

Amazon Elastic Container Service is a stable solution.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is a scalable solution.

The technical support team is not knowledgeable enough to provide us with solutions everytime. The support team joins the call, but they provide solutions only six to seven out of ten times we contact them. They say they are unsure how to do it the rest of the time.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Since Amazon Elastic Container Service is a cloud-based solution, we do not need to handle the infrastructure, and it provides auto-scalable functionality.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is an expensive solution.

I recommend that users choose Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) instead of Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS).

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

I use Amazon EC2 Container Service to install system instances that need a container. I rely on it when I use microservices. 

I like the tool's availability and automated scalability. I need to define the port numbers, and when I have a large load of requests, I can get automated scalability. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is easy to create and manage. I can use it easily on my CI/CD pipeline and deploy solutions. 

The product should improve its price. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

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

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

The tool's deployment is easy. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. It saves time for my support and development teams. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a trustworthy infrastructure from Amazon. It speeds up delivery from the infrastructure and development teams. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We use the solution for a web application like an e-commerce or a basic site. I have a business site.

EC2 is an initial level with a nominal cost. As a customer, we need to approach an EC2 tool. Additionally, other instances are available at slightly higher costs. Hence, once the business is established and running smoothly, we can upgrade to another instance.

We use the EC2 for testing purposes or as a starting point.

We need RAM, CPU, and install cPanel. cPanel is a separate third-party tool. If we install an EC2 tool, it would be an interface for managing files and databases, making it easier to maintain them.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service as a customer and a partner for two to three years.

The product is stable. We need to skip the unnecessary servers or sometimes enable the autoscaling group feature to adjust based on conditions automatically.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight-point five out of ten.

We can increase the RAM, CPU, and hard disk for scalability.

We have used different hosting from different companies.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution's pricing is nominal. Also, it manages all the servers, mainly when certain servers might experience slowdowns. Amazon EC2 offers features that don't affect the website or application's performance.

If a customer requires a low-cost server, we suggest considering different options from various companies. Otherwise, we recommend exploring the offerings provided by Amazon EC2.

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

I use Amazon ECS to easily set up and manage resources for my applications, similar to Kubernetes but simpler. I work with ECS through the command line, and I installed a tool called QCTL to make it even more user-friendly. With ECS, I can write code to describe my applications, and then I can quickly deploy them. It is a very efficient way to handle containerized applications, whether it is a simple website or a complex system.

The best thing about Amazon Elastic Container Service is its availability and reliability.

There don't seem to be any improvements needed for ECS at the moment. I will consider them once I get my projects running smoothly and understand the costs better.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for six months.

I would rate the stability of ECS as an eight out of ten. While it is generally stable, there have been some issues, especially when working on client projects where troubleshooting was needed. Stability can be affected if someone doesn't have Terraform installed, as it is crucial for provisioning. It is essential to have good knowledge of what you are doing when using ECS. Overall, it is a good service, but some factors like Terraform's expertise can impact stability.

I would rate the scalability of ECS as a nine out of ten. While I haven't explored all its features extensively, based on what I have used so far, it is highly scalable and capable of handling increased workloads effectively. In our organization, quite a few users use ECS for various tasks, similar to how many users access certain files or resources. However, this information isn't available to everyone in the company, and it is restricted to specific departments or teams. Our company has a substantial client base that relies on ECS for their needs.

I have not had any need to contact technical support.

The initial setup of ECS is generally straightforward, but it is essential to have some command-line experience to avoid potential mistakes. The deployment time for ECS varies depending on your internet speed, but it typically takes a maximum of five minutes. It works well with Terraform and Kubernetes, allowing you to create resources efficiently. Overall, it is a user-friendly and efficient tool for managing containers.

My advice to new users would be to have a good understanding of how ECS works, especially in the command line. While the web interface is helpful, knowing how to work with the command line is crucial, especially when dealing with provisioning and managing resources on virtual machines. The more you learn about the command line, the better you will be at efficiently working with ECS and providing effective solutions. Knowledge in this area is highly valuable. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It depends on the specific needs and requirements. For example, if it's for customer care on Windows Server, they need to onboard the EC2.

Performance is our top priority. So, if we need to deploy on a high-specification machine, we can choose it from the software. If we just need a low-specification one, we can just choose it based on the requirement handling software configuration.

There is room for improvement in the licensing costs. There can be better licensing costs. 

We have been providing this service for two years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

It offers good scalability. You can scale down and scale up easily. You can easily adjust resources based on your needs, whether public or private deployments. Complex configurations are not required for scaling or scheduling tasks.

We have two customers using this solution. 

The technical support team is knowledgeable and customer-friendly. They offer prompt and helpful assistance.

I have experience with Alibaba Cloud and Cisco's container platform. However, I prefer the Amazon EC2 Container Service for its ease of use, scalability, and integration with AWS services.

However, Alibaba is on-premises, and EC2 is on the cloud. The best option depends on regulations. Some industries and competitors have regulations that require on-premises solutions, while others allow cloud solutions. The specific needs and regulations will determine the best option for each client.

It depends on the data manager and the specific client. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment takes approximately 5-10 minutes. 

You simply access the portal, choose the appropriate configuration, and upload your code. No complex technical knowledge is required.

The licensing is expensive. The licensing is available on a monthly basis, yearly basis, and a pay-as-you-go licensing model. 

It's user-friendly and requires minimal technical expertise. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.