Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Reviews

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is used to automatically scale up and down the number of server nodes we have. For example, if we wanted to provision an EC2 machine as our website server, this one machine might not be able to handle an increase in traffic.

If the traffic increases, AWS will automatically add one more machine, which is an exact copy of the other machine, and that will take the additional node. With Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, you set the minimum and maximum limits. For example, at minimum, you should have two servers; at maximum, you can have four servers. So the number of servers can oscillate between two and four depending on the traffic.

The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling. We just have to enable the load balancer, set the minimal and maximum limits, and it will handle everything by itself.

We faced a problem once. The different machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have separate IP addresses. These machines, in turn, connect to our MongoDB Service. Since MongoDB has an IP address-based firewall in the middle, it will only allow IP addresses you have whitelisted.

So whenever the solution creates a new machine, we have to add the IP address to our MongoDB whitelist. Whenever it deletes and recreates, the old IP address becomes invalid. This causes our connections to break, and our customers don't get the data. The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict.

My organization has been using Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for more than one year.

Two people are using the solution in our organization.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing’s initial setup is very easy.

We use the solution on-cloud. A load balancer's auto-scaling service is always needed when we set up a dedicated server because we cannot do the scaling manually. We used a load balance for our server-based approaches, but we don't need a load balancer for our serverless approaches.

Overall, I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing nine out of ten.

Application Load Balancer is required for redirecting two or more instances. We have got two EKS instances running. So, we have to connect in a round-robin fashion based on when a request needs to be sent to one EKS and when it needs to be sent to another EKS. For this purpose, we use Application Load Balancer.

It has very good features. It is very configurable. Security with TLS, et cetera is also very easy. 

It is good performance-wise, and the logging mechanism is also very good because we get the VPC log whenever a request comes. So, we can easily find out where the request is coming from.

One issue that we faced with ALB was that leaf-level certificate validation was not happening. It is not that user-friendly in that aspect. 

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of stability.

We have more than 200 users, and we have 40 technical people.

I have never reached out to them.

Its initial setup is straightforward.

There is a yearly license.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate it an eight of ten.

We have a lot of customers who are currently not on Amazon; they are running on-premise data centers. When they ask us to migrate, we migrate their applications to Amazon. Load Balancing is often a component we use. We use HTTPS port 443, and we integrate the load balancer with the applications.

• Very easy to implement.
• Very well integrated into Amazon's services.

It would be good if we had a product that integrates well with third-party vendors. Some of our customers want a multi-cloud solution. They don't want to be tied up to or be in just one cloud. In that case, a third-party solution that could integrate with the cloud as well as with on-premise would be great.

Reporting would be a good feature as well.

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

So far it has not given us any problem. It's always running, 24/7.

The workload that we have put on it has not required surplus scalability. It has been able to handle our customers' loads. We have not come across a situation where massive scalability has been required, so far, and we have implemented it for large companies.

We have not reached out to support so far, for Amazon Elastic Load Balancing. 

We do have their API Gateway and we have had to reach out to support twice. The API gateway nodes went down and they had to restart the nodes. I consider API Gateway as also having some kind of internal load balancing.

The setup is straightforward. It took a couple of hours, with one person involved.

I have not seen other products so that I can compare them and tell you the Amazon solution needs improvement. So far, its functionality has been enough for the projects we have done.

We have not used the network load balancer so far in Amazon. We have only used the application load balancer. As far as an application load balancer is concerned, it doesn't require any additional features.

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.

I am using the solution to manage the front end of the application. I have a service where multiple clients log in for usage. The solution helps in load balancing by distributing the traffic to the application.

The solution's most valuable feature is the ease of use. It is more convenient to use compared to self-hosted load balancers.

They should improve the solution's pricing.

I have been using the solution for ten months.

It is a stable solution.

I rate the solution's scalability as a nine. It helps me manage around 100 end users of my application service.

The solution's support team is helpful.

Positive

The services offered by the solution and its competitors are almost similar. But Amazon is much more stable than them. Although, I don't have any quantifiable evidence.

The solution itself has simple functionality. It is straightforward to deploy and doesn't require maintenance.

The solution is expensive. I rate its pricing as a three.

I rate the solution as an eight.

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.