Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.