Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

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.

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.

Public Cloud

We had a client who needed us to develop a simple application. The client specified the requirement for the application to be hosted on Amazon, leading us to utilize Amazon EC2 Container Service for this purpose.

We primarily employ the Linux platform in terms of architecture. It utilizes its database, MySQL. Additionally, for CI/CD processes, we rely on Amazon CodeBuild. Furthermore, we use Amazon S3 storage to store specific static files. Currently, the system is running smoothly, and we don't actively perform any maintenance tasks as everything is automated.

I would like the product to improve integration with different platforms.

I have been using the product since 2020.

The solution is stable. We did not encounter any downtime.

My company has around five users for the product. The solution is utilized by a government agency, serving as a procurement monitoring system for government projects, particularly in infrastructure development. The focus is primarily on road construction and building facilities for the government agency. It is scalable as it's easy to add additional resources or increase capacity. We can easily scale horizontally or vertically, and it comes with its load-balancing capability. This makes it straightforward to manage an increased volume of transactions. Our team is relatively small, consisting of about five to six members. Additionally, the client has an equivalent counterpart that provides operational support. On the operational side, the head office has a well-structured organizational setup, with individuals supporting operations and maintaining the data. In terms of technical aspects, there's also a counterpart responsible for monitoring the performance of the application and the platform on the client side.

AWS' technical support is very helpful.

The tool’s deployment is straightforward. We need to spin up the instance, select the platform, and choose the type of specific computer resources. The developers use Git, compress the file, and configure the pipeline to deploy the compressed application file. Additionally, they utilize a desktop button that automates the uploaded application's deployment on the EC2 instance.

Our technical team did the deployment using Bitbucket pipeline.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is cheap.

The organizational structure consists of a head office and regional offices. Each regional office has a designated point person responsible for user support in their respective region and division. Our primary scope involves the development of the application, deployment, and providing training. I rate the solution a ten out of ten. In our case, the requirements are straightforward. The console offers all the necessary information for basic operations. However, for those new to using the AWS tool, it's advisable to visit their training website to read and understand the instructions on how to set up and use the tool effectively. The basic setup is covered in the training resources.

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 have hosted 50 websites using Amazon Elastic Container Service. The websites are used by our end customers and internal employees as well.

ECS is a useful platform.

The orchestration of the workloads running in ECS needs improvement. Additionally, they should automate the auto-scaling features for containers.

We have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service since 2019.

I rate the product’s stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten.

In the beginning, when it was a new service, there was not a lot of documentation and online support available. So, we regularly contacted the product’s technical support and development team.

ECS’s initial setup process is complex as we have to follow many manual steps. I rate the process a seven out of ten. It takes a few minutes to a few hours to complete.

The platform is inexpensive.

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service a seven out of ten. I advise others to use AWS EKS than ECS.

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 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 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.