Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Reviews

I host virtual machines and multiple web servers in AWS and use Cloudflare as the front end. I don't use the front end offered by AWS. The developer recommended using Cloudflare because it's so much easier.

I have only deployed Elastic Load Balancing for two companies so far, but we evaluated it for the university where I previously worked. Unfortunately, they didn't take our advice and went with it. It required a lot of extra effort to integrate it with the firewall.

The feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera.

The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart.

I have been using Elastic Load Balancing for three to four years.

Elastic Load Balancing is a robust solution and highly reliable, but it requires a lot of care and feeding.

I rate AWS support 10 out of 10. 

Positive

Elastic Load Balancing could be easier to set up. Other technical experts might say it's easy. My definition of easy is pointing the website to it, and it's working in 10 minutes. It takes a couple of hours to set it up. You need at least one person or maybe two if you have a significant web presence.

I see a return from using AWS. If you have a website with a lot of content built on the fly, you want to go with AWS.

I don't know precisely what it costs, but they're charging you for the amount of data that you transmit. You pay a small fee to have the services enabled, but you're really paying for the amount of data that goes through that VPC.

I rate Elastic Load Balancing eight out of 10. I can make a lot of money with AWS. It's highly lucrative, but it depends on the client's wants. If someone says that cost is no object and wants the most robust solution, that will be AWS. Am I going to do the AWS load balancing or CDN from Cloudflare? That's up for discussion. However, it's hard to beat AWS if you want a secure, reliable solution. AWS Elastic Load Balancing and global DNS with Route 53 are the Cadillac solutions. They're the most reliable and excellent cars with all the bells and whistles.

However, if you are using the web application firewall solution with AWS, you have to buy other technologies to do an excellent job of building the rules. If you want to compare and contrast the rule base for the web application firewall solution, Fastly and Cloudflare are industry leaders. Small, medium-sized, and large businesses can do well with Cloudflare. It's a set-it-and-forget-it solution. With Cloudflare, many technical people build the rules in real time, fix things, and make things work. 

I  would recommend Elastic Load Balancing, depending on the size of the implementation and the amount of scalability they anticipate. The difference between a solution that requires something like AWS versus a simple CDN is the amount of live content on a system. A simple CDN like Cloudflare is excellent if there's a lot of static content. A server can take a lot of those requests when there's a limited amount of dynamic content. If you have a site with many moving parts, it needs a lot of business logic and horsepower. It's doing a lot of queries. That's when you use AWS.

Understand your data, content, user base, and whether you will get many requests. Let's say you built the website to run on your basic LAMP: Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP. In that case, it doesn't matter what kind of server you use. AWS Route 53 provides global DNS load balancing. I also recommend that. You don't have to use AWS to host. If you're using Elastic Load Balancing, you can only use AWS, but Route 53 balances with Azure as well. 

The primary use case is for learning purposes. A load balancer is used to redirect sites. It is used for managing traffic in cloud infrastructure, utilizing the traffic of multiple cloud servers or a website uploaded on AWS, and matching traffic in simple terms.

It can help manage traffic. That is our biggest benefit in Windows and in VNet both. Also, it can increase the response time because manually attaching some volumes and storage can take more time, but in load balancing, it takes less time.

The overall EC2 instance is best for learning purposes. I have used the application load balancer because it has an easy-to-understand interface, which is beneficial for traffic management. Elastic Load Balancer can distribute traffic easily through various gateways.

I am not aware of any features not available because I have less experience using Elastic Load Balancer, focusing more on Application Load Balancer.

I have hands-on experience with load balancer for around one month.

I find it stable, and I do not face any performance issues currently.

I find it scalable. I can scale the EC2 instance where I can create an instance of approximately twenty GB and attach the S3 bucket and volume to increase its storage.

I have not required any technical support because I am using the free tier of AWS. However, I understand that if we face issues and pay for AWS, they provide technical support in three steps, with varying levels of service depending on payment.

Neutral

I do not work with any other products for load balancing. I primarily use AWS and application and Elastic Load Balancer.

The initial setup was easy due to the user-friendly AWS interface. You first need to create the instance because, without an instance, the load balancing is useless. Then, you create the target group and attach the target group to the load balancer.

I use the free tier of AWS, so I do not have much experience with setup costs or licensing.

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing because it is easy to understand. The UI is very understandable, and AWS is more stable than GCP and Microsoft Azure.

Elastic Load Balancer is used to maintain requests and distribute traffic on target groups. The target could be any type of instances, IPs, or Lambda functions. Most of the time, the target group is an instance.

I appreciate the checks that Elastic Load Balancer performs with the instances to ensure they are running properly. 

Additionally, the Grid feature is impactful as it checks that instances are properly configured and running.

Sometimes the target group takes too much time to configure or to be seen on the internet, especially when configuring through ISV tools.

I have been working with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for more than one year.

I find Amazon Elastic Load Balancing to be stable.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scalable.

Neither I nor my team have needed to escalate to tech support for now.

Positive

I worked with Azure Load Balancer previously. AWS is very user-friendly compared to Azure, which requires many steps to configure a simple load balancer.

The initial setup is sometimes complex, however, after working on it for one or two months, it becomes very easy.

I create a separate security group for Elastic Load Balancer, then proceed with the target group or listener rules.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing has shown great performance and efficiency, especially in high-traffic e-commerce applications during sales times.

I have experience with Azure Load Balancer.

I recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for high-traffic web applications because it performs great.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We have a public-based application where we are using Elastic Load Balancing. It supports our AI-driven applications, though currently, I am not using it for that purpose.

The only thing that could be improved is their technical support. The first level contact needs to be more quick.

I have been working with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for five years.

Customer support is good. However, the first level contact requires a more quick response. They charge for technical support depending on the support model required.

Neutral

I have not worked with similar products before Amazon Elastic Load Balancing.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is cheaper when compared to other major public load balancers like Azure and GCP. Each Amazon service has its own charges, and additional technical support incurs extra costs based on the support model selected.

Everyone uses load balancers when the application is public-facing as there are no other choices.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the tool for load balancing.

The tool integrates well with Amazon native services. Its valuable feature is integrations.

The product should be made as an alternative to Amazon services. It would be easier for us if you got one service that is available everywhere.

I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing's scalability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's deployment is simple. Follow the instructions from AWS, and it can be completed in a day.

I have no issues with the tool's pricing. 

I rate the tool an eight out of ten and recommend it to others.

We use the tool to move the target location from one location to another.

The product automatically distributes our incoming traffic to multiple targets like EC2 instances, containers, and IP addresses in one or more availability zones. If one instance fails, the product automatically creates another instance. Security and monitoring for high-performance applications are some of the top features. We can perform health checks using the target keyword in ALB.

We faced some issues with the health check. I had to check the EC2 instances and ELB. It worked properly after that. Auto Scaling must be improved.

I have used the solution in the past year.

We use Auto Scaling. If an instance goes down, it creates a new instance.

The initial setup is easy.

The product is not cheap. It is a pay-as-you-go model. It costs us $30 per month.

I work mostly on DevOps tools. I like to work on AWS. I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use Amazon Elastic Load Balancing with EC2 instances to distribute traffic. I also incorporate Lambda for serverless technology and disaster recovery for backup across multiple availability zones. 

Additionally, AWS Backup is utilized for regular backups, and VPC is used for network configuration and traffic management.

The most valuable feature is the Lambda function due to its utility with serverless technology. It allows deployment of code without a server and facilitates connection between multiple services. This automatic functionality is highly beneficial for serverless technology. 

Additionally, Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is excellent for traffic management and security.

Clients sometimes face issues with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, and it can take a long time to detect these issues. Although Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is effective for managing traffic and security bases, the delay in issue detection is an area for improvement.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for around one year.

I have not faced any stability issues with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing. I know how to use it effectively, which helps in avoiding problems.

The scalability of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is straightforward. It allows for easy scaling up or down of data.

The support team at Amazon is excellent. In my experience of generating more tickets with AWS support, they were very supportive and understanding, solving issues swiftly within one or two days.

Positive

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing because it is very useful for companies that have a heavy server load. It is beneficial for managing traffic and ensuring security. 

I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing as eight out of ten. While it is excellent in its core functionalities, it sometimes takes a long time to detect client issues, which affects its perfect rating.

We use the solution in our application deployment by configuring the server with the customer's specific port.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing transfers the data securely from servers to users and splits the traffic based on peak times.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for two years and eight months.

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

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is a scalable solution.

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

The solution’s technical support is good.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

It takes around five to ten minutes to deploy the solution.

The solution's pricing is $30 per month.

Once, the external network load balancer was not working because of the server-side change. The server had changed the certificate to a TLS version. We were unable to edit the security policy as a TLS version with the network load balancer. So, I created the classic load balancer instead of the network load balancer, and we're able to edit the security policy as the TLS version.

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing to other users.

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