What advice do you have for others considering Amazon Elastic Load Balancing?

I would prefer to remain totally anonymous. I am a partner with Amazon. I rate this solution as 8 out of 10.

I advise new users to use Amazon Elastic Load Balancing properly and efficiently, utilizing it only when required. Pay attention to security concerns related to listening ports and opt for the Application Load Balancer due to its advanced features. I would rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing a nine out of ten. My overall rating for the product is nine out of ten.

I recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for high-traffic web applications because it performs great. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I recommend the AWS network load balancer for high-traffic web applications due to its speed and control over configuration settings, which allows handling low-level details efficiently. My experience has been positive, and I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing highly - nine out of ten.

For high traffic applications, one should consider the network load balancer due to its lower latency. Additionally, it's important to understand the use case and the specific requirements before selecting a load balancer. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate Elastic Load Balancer a ten, acknowledging there's always room for improvement.

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.

I recommend going through AWS documentation and doing a brief proof of concept before implementing it in production. We find Amazon Elastic Load Balancing quite beneficial. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The health check capabilities are basic, running on digital ports, and not advanced load-based health monitoring. However, it does help improve application uptime. I recommend it for small businesses and, in some cases, medium-sized companies. I would rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

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

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 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.

One should use it if one wants their application to be resilient, highly available, and scalable. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

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.

I rate the solution as an eight.

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.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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

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.