Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

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.

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 use Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) for efficient container orchestration. We start by creating Docker containers and then storing them in ECS. It facilitates container deployment, offering flexibility between serverless execution and traditional EC2 instances. It enables automated deployments, providing an option to edit them as needed through integrated CI/CD pipelines.

The product's most valuable feature is service discovery functionality. It is an excellent feature impacting cost reduction. It facilitates the seamless connection of backend services to the front end, utilizing local domains. Additionally, the integration of with Atmos, another service management tool by AWS, enhances its functionality. It shows the impactful configuration provided by the AWS team.

There is room for improvement, particularly in logging and monitoring for the product, while integrating external third-party tools like Elastic Log Kibana and Grafana or Primatius. They could provide easier options for third-party integrations similar to internal AWS services.

We have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for two years.

The platform has high stability with no downtime for any services. In case of unavailability, we can refer to AWS documentation or contact the technical support team for SLA services.

The scalability depends on specific user cases. It helps us handle increased traffic or workload. When clients require login deployments due to application version or UI component changes, we utilize CodeDeploy in conjunction with AWS CodePipeline for deployment. While there is no downtime during these deployments, scaling the application might take some time due to scheduling considerations.

The technical support team is very friendly.

The initial setup is easy. AWS manages the deployment with predefined configurations.

They offer a pay-as-you-go pricing model for the product. It is inexpensive compared to Kubernetes, which considers a minimum number of microservices.

The new users would need help to deploy the CI/CD pipeline for the product. They need to follow proper documentation. It also provides some settings for automated deployment.

We integrated ECS for a logistics project. It is working fine without any downtime for five microservices.

I rate it an eight 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 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.