Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

ECS is flexible and easy to use. AWS, itself manages the work nodes, scaling, and monitoring. It includes handling alerts for infrastructure and clusters.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It easily dies. 

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service's scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support services are good. I contact them for troubleshooting purposes.

Positive

The initial setup is easy compared to EKS.

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten. If you are beginning to use cloud services, ECS is the best and easy-to-use product you can go for.

We are using the solution to run our apps and services. We make use of Docker to run our API services. So, we use ECS as the container service to run all of our Docker images.

Its most valuable feature is the ability to work with Docker images. We just have to give it a Docker image and run some parameters. It keeps the process going for us. It's been great. We don't have to worry about where and how it gets deployed. We just know that it's going to run and we can contact it at a particular address. It integrates perfectly with AWS's service mapping feature and allows one ECS container to contact any other ECS container using a service name. It's almost like an internal DNS thing. If we want to expose it to the internet, we just put a load balancer. It passes requests from the load balancer to the relative ECS services. It also helps for scaling–we just have to add one in a new container. That's pretty cool.

I see they have changed the console a bit to make it easier to use. Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions. Currently, I have to set up all of those by myself.

We have been using the solution since October 2021.

The whole engineering team of six people at our organization uses the solution.

There were some issues with the setup. It wasn't the easiest to get going as opposed to something like SFTP Gateway. It's a learning curve. You need to learn what a cluster is, what a task is, and what a service is. There are no industry standard concepts that could be applied to different technologies. You need to learn ECS-specific concepts. It's similar to Docker Swarm or other resource management technologies like Kubernetes. They have similar concepts, so if you come from that world, you might understand it a bit easier. There is some AWS-specific stuff that you just need to learn. Once you get over that learning curve, then it works pretty nicely. I would rate the setup procedure as a four out of ten.

The price of ECS is not bad. It is based on usage. It works on a per-hour pricing model.

I would definitely recommend the solution. Once you get the procedure right and set a pattern, it just works. I have used different use cases, languages, and frameworks. Everything works nicely once you get the pattern right. The solution scales by itself, and you can set the threshold of how to scale it. Once it goes to 80% of CPU for five minutes, it scales up automatically, and then if the CPU usage goes down, it scales down. You don't have to pay for that upscale cost over time. You need not have to worry about servers or machines. You just have to worry about your containers. It's great.

Also, deploying to ECS is pretty easy via whatever CI you use. It's generally quite easy. It also integrates with Amazon's ECR service, which holds the Docker images used for the services and containers. It works nicely with the ECS.

If you have credentials or secrets that you might want to use as environment variables in your applications, you could inject them at run time into your containers. ECS caters to this with a pretty easy task definition like syntax. You just have to specify the secret name in the task definition and ECS will know when it starts, and when it needs to pull this secret into the container at run time. Thus it's not vulnerable to an attack where someone can snoop on your task definition. It's not in plain text and it only works if you give your container explicit permission to pull the secret.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten.

We are using Amazon Elastic Container Service for Docker-based configuration. Previously, we had to manually go into an instance and then issue all Docker agents and instances. Now, we are using Amazon ECS to automate all of our Docker containers.

We are deploying our microservices architecture in the ECS container install. We are using ECS as a service.

It has an Auto Scaling group feature. We can use this feature to have an Auto Scaling group to specify a minimum and maximum count for all types of configurations. Based on the specified values, Amazon Elastic Container Service scales the required CPU environmental metrics.

Sometimes, the instances fail under the ECS container cluster, and we have to manually go and find out the black sheep in the ECS container instance. 

We had an issue earlier where one of the instances under the ECS container cluster went down, and we were not able to identify that instance. The instance got terminated, but a new instance did not come up. Therefore, I had to manually get that instance up. It could be optimized better. In production, we normally cannot sustain such things. It can be optimized in terms of instances, durability, and serving the requests of customers.

We have been dealing with Amazon Elastic Container Service for three to four years. 

It's good. Our platform stability has rated from 97%, 98% to 99.99%. We are pretty much happy with the stability of Amazon Elastic Container Service. We have been allocated a relationship manager, and he will be more than happy to offer all the technical specs and the building details. We didn't find any issues as of now.

It's scalable. We haven't found any issues as of now in our organization. It's good. 

It's very good. We'll be getting timely updates about the new features and objects available. They will know how we are deploying and whether we want any technical support. If you're going for a long, big bang approach of releasing the product as a whole, they'll be warming out ELBs. We don't know how ELB warming works out. They'll provide some extra help. So, technical support is very good.

The initial setup is straightforward. We'll be using AWS CLI commands for initializing the cluster. It is not hard to set up. It is pretty straightforward. 

We deployed it ourselves. We have four DevOps engineers and four AWS engineers for a team of 150 developers. We have enough for the complete platform.

I don't exactly deal with the pricing. We have a separate Infra team that deals with the pricing. They are more into the scalability part. 

Based on our requirements, the pricing will increase. The automation teams will test some of the benefits to see how can we can optimize the cost. They'll have a security manager connection and some alerts based upon the usage to see how to reduce the building cost based upon the installations. 

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Container Service. They have a big R&D team, and they'll be providing good features for customers. I think AWS has been pretty good on this R&D thing. I would like to appreciate their team, which continuously looks into customer satisfaction and comes up with a new bunch of services every time. They're moving to a customer-centric approach. 

We aren't looking into specific new features. We are in the testing phase currently. If they are releasing some new features, we should definitely use them based on our requirements.

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

We use the solution to host applications and run applications.

The solution is quite scalable and allows you to launch multiple EC2s within minutes.

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

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a highly scalable solution. A lot of users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is pretty easy.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is worth the money.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a cloud-based solution. I would recommend the solution to other users because it is scalable and stable. We can turn down the solution and start it again in a minute.

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

We host our production application on EC2. We host the application and take regular backups to create mirrors for our customers. We also use the solution’s firewall to save us against any threat.

The most valuable feature of the tool is its ease of usage. We spin off new servers and host our applications on those servers. The best thing I like about the product is hosting. It is super easy. Features for creating a server and hosting it is all builtin within the solution. I don't have to build a backup service. It is already available. I don't have to build a database as well. It is already built. I can just use any existing DB and then connect it directly to the DB instances and use it. Everything is ready to use.

We’ve been hosting our production application on the product. The most important criterion for us is downtime. In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime. It is the greatest thing. We have had zero downtime in the last seven years. Nothing can be better than that.

Billing is extremely complex. The whole concept of billing is so complicated that we never understand it. There is an upfront cost, and there is a network cost. It is impossible for me to calculate the cost, understand it, and inform the client about it.

We are never sure of our end cost. Sometimes the cost blows up and ends up being five times more than what we calculated. There is no way to understand the cost. I want the solution to have a better billing system and dashboard to understand the billing.

The solution could be more intuitive. If I'm using a service and my backup has gone down, there should be a notification or suggestion to help me understand what I can do. It should explain how I could have avoided the issue. EC2 is huge, and we'll never know all its services. The tool should have a way of suggesting to me what I can do better.

It can be through notifications, tutorials or through their customer service team. The product could provide CI/CD services in the future.

I have been using the product for seven years.

The tool’s stability is perfect.

The tool is scalable. It can be scaled according to our needs. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. In our company, more than 100 people use the solution.

The technical support team is pretty good. The response time is very quick.

We have used Azure, and it provides similar services. However, we do not have a lot of experience in Azure.

The initial setup is super simple.

I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

The billing is really painful. The product must provide some intuitive notification to inform us if we are not doing something the best way. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It has helped our organization greatly and especially on weekends because we have many transactions as our users are buying some kind of tools and paying online.

The solution is easy to use. When you have nodes like Python, it's easy to plug and play.

The documentation and usage for the users can be better because for new users it can be very hard to understand and use the solution. They can add small images and accessories.

I have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution. I rate it eight out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution. I rate it five out of ten.

The technical support team is good but if you are looking for any documentation then it is not very helpful.

The initial setup is easy and it is deployed on the cloud. 

I have seen ROI with the product's use. 

The pricing is good.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service for Kubernetes and hosting sites. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a flexible product from Amazon. You can put it in the Auto Scaling group for high availability. There are also a lot of choices for pricing. 

The product can become expensive if you don't choose what you want. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

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

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service's deployment is easy and takes three minutes to complete. 

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

Our services are relatively straightforward to manage. We have a limited number of servers compared to some others. When it comes to billing, our plan is flexible, but it may not be the most suitable option for medium-sized enterprises.

They handle the backup process quite well. They automatically encapsulate it, including container backups, without relying heavily on the client's involvement. This is a significant advantage compared to other providers where clients often need to manage the process more independently. It's a feature that I find suitable and beneficial.        

For instance, we've opted for a fixed monthly fee, which covers us for a broad range of data usage. However, with Amazon, the billing tends to increase exponentially as data usage grows, which poses some financial challenges for us. We've also integrated AWS and Synchronoss services into our setup.

I also believe there are limitations in terms of upgrading. The software has the concept of dedicated servers that you can manage. However, an issue arises when you can't match one operating system with another that you've already purchased. You can't simply merge them; instead, you have to buy a completely new one. This limitation has caused some challenges for us.

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

Initially, we operated our servers on-premises. However, as we aimed to improve the quality of service for our clients, managing local infrastructure became challenging. To address this, we made the decision to move to cloud providers. We chose providers like OVH, where we procured Bandwidth servers and Ultra servers. These providers offer a flat-rate billing plan, which includes servers with specific resources like RAM, processors, and databases. You configure your setup, and they provide you with a monthly bill. On the other hand, Amazon's billing system is more dynamic. It adjusts the billing based on the demand and usage of the server. This dynamic billing approach has posed certain challenges.

There are no specific issues with the service itself; it's quite good. The only concern we have is the billing structure, which may not be the best fit for medium-sized enterprises like ours. The service is more aligned with the needs of larger corporations.

My advice would be for them to stay up-to-date with the current market trends, especially in the cloud services sector. While Amazon is a leader, it should be open to adapting and being competitive in the evolving market. The flexibility in server configuration is crucial, and the billing plan can remain as it is. However, most cloud server providers tend to have similar billing plans based on the server's performance and usage, so it's essential to align with these industry standards.

I rate the overall solution a six out of ten.