Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling Reviews

We have several instances and applications that we run using WordPress. For that, I needed an easy, secure, and faster solution with different options to back up the website and data. Amazon EC2 offers options to back up data using the S3 version control system, which worked really well for us. Moreover, it's cost-effective.

Having a load balancer in between is very helpful when you have huge traffic. It has been beneficial for handling around 80,000 to 200,000 visitors a month on our blog.

There is room for improvement in the scalability.

I have been working with this solution for a couple of months. So, it's been three to four months.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is definitely more complex than any of the readily available tools. But, it's okay. It's well-documented, so it was not a big deal for me.

The deployment took me around a week, and it's been running for three months in a row. But yeah, we are still testing.

It's not expensive, nor too cheap; it's okay. We can compare it to the pricing of other cloud service providers.

Right now, EC2 is in the testing phase, and we are still using Cloudera and DigitalOcean. However, I'm looking for solutions that could be more helpful in the long run. Additionally, I've used Amazon RDS as the database provider because our CMS has become heavy over time. So I had to offload the database into RDS and connect it with EC2.

When using Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling, it's crucial to have a solid understanding of cloud computing and infrastructure management. That's very essential.

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

I use the solution in my personal time. I like to play with it and learn a bit of software.

The solution is very easy to use, and its APIs are also very good.

The product's great, but the pricing could be improved.

I've been working with Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling for a few years.

I rate EC2's stability a ten out of ten.

The workspace is something EC2 has embedded, so it's quite good. They have different options to work with it. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. I'm the only one using the solution.`

EC2 takes a few minutes to deploy. We have more than one option while deploying the solution. We can use the GUI or the command line, making it possible to use the solution's APIs.

The solution can be implemented in-house with the proper knowledge.

You need some contracts to get support for EC2.

EC2 is a good place to start if you have some good ideas for a business because you can avoid upfront expenses. I believe you can do the same things with Amazon as with Google, Microsoft, or many other companies.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten because you must still learn how to use it first.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling is a function inside Amazon EC2.

We are using it to scale the capacity of our internet services. It automatically increases capacity when usage surpasses certain thresholds to prevent any issues with capacity.

The solution has greatly reduced our workload. Specifically, it allows us to automate the monitoring of sites, even when we don't have staff available to do it.

The auto-scaling feature is particularly useful. Additionally, CloudWatch and CloudTrail are also important features for us.

As we are transitioning to managing containerized applications, the solution could improve by adding more managed container services as a feature in the solution.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling for approximately eight years.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling is highly reliable.

I rate the stability of Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 20 users using the solution. We plan to increase our usage as we progress.

I rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a ten out of ten.

We have a very close connection with Amazon. We have all representatives from Amazon contacting us, approximately monthly. We have a channel where we can get in touch with them through instant messaging. 

I rate support from Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a nine out of ten.

Positive

I use Microsoft Azure prior and Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling. They both operate very similarly. We have a multi-cloud environment and we use both solutions.

The initial setup of Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling is straightforward.

The deployment process is simple and straightforward. It mainly involved configuring the settings on the console. We only need to log in, modified the necessary settings, saved it, and that is it. There were no specific actions required for deployment.

I rate the initial setup of Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a ten out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

We monitor the spending from dashboards on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. We have various kinds of dashboards and we have seen a return on investment.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling uses a pay-as-you-go pricing model. 

I rate the price of Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a nine out of ten.

I advise others to establish a baseline measurement of usage and determine the necessary threshold parameters for cost and computing power before implementation. It is a relatively effective and simple way to expand capacity.

I rate Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for two instances for the frontend and backend, then I use CI/CD pipelines to integrate both, and finally, I use Jenkins.

Most of what I've deployed are CI/CD pipelines. AWS is scalable. You can always increase or adjust the resources to meet the specific requirements. I also like choosing an instance in any location, preferably the closest one. We don't have any AWS locations in South Africa, but the latency is about the same as hosting in Europe.

There should be an AWS instance in South Africa, where the latency would be even lower. It might happen soon since AWS has recently opened more data centres in Nigeria. AWS may extend its reach to South Africa, and offer hosted CLI servers there. Most of the problems with AWS are not to do with the solution itself but with configuration. It is something on design, more or less.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling for two years. It is a cloud-based solution.

Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling is stable. We have not experienced any downtime in the past two years.

The solution’s scalability is good. It is pretty straightforward and not in production yet.

The initial setup is straightforward. There is an interface that makes it easy to select what you need, and billing is also quite straightforward.

The front end of the instances takes a couple of minutes.

I set up the solution, but for the database in Postgres, I need to contact a call centre. I need to PRT five times to integrate the front and back end. I also need to work with the consultant.

I first automatically provisioned the required services and configurations. I created an AWS account. I then checked the gigabyte-based deals, reviewed the instance instructions, and added the appropriate insights. This was a good first-time experience, and setting up each instance and naming them was pretty straightforward.

AWS offered some credits, so we have been able to enjoy some of those benefits. The pricing was fair.

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

The product helps our organization minimize costs by providing high availability of applications and microservice.

The product's most valuable features are high availability and persistence.

The product should improve vertical scaling features. It should support scaling inside the nodes. It requires the capacity to scale microservices in other nodes.

We have been using Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling for seven years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight or nine out of ten.

Compared to the product, Karpenter has a high algorithm to manage horizontal and vertical scaling. I rate its scalability a six out of ten. 

We used OpenShift earlier. We switched to Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling for better infrastructure performance.

The initial setup process is easy. It involves configuring a cluster, creating a cluster request, and using code to deploy it. The deployment time depends on specific applications and infrastructure. It takes approximately three days to complete and needs one person to execute maintenance and patching.

Sometimes, we take the help of an integrator, whereas sometimes, we refer to the documentation for the product implementation.

The product's pricing depends on the traffic and workload. Additional costs exist if you use services like CloudWatch, VPN, etc.

The product is easy to use and configure for small nodes. For large nodes, I advise others to use other solutions like Karpenter.

I rate Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling an eight out of ten.

We use EC2 as a disaster-recovery target and also to host a web server. We've got a demo account that uses AT&T Azure managed services where customers can log into our software. 

I like the fact that you don't need to pay for it when you aren't using it, especially in a disaster recovery scenario. The pricing is transparent, so you know what you're going to pay for it. 

If your EC2 instance doesn't boot up, you're in the dark about what's happening. It would be amazing if you could get a view of the console to see the status. There's something called the AWS Console, which is a web portal. I would like to see a virtual screen of an instance that hasn't started properly, so I can see where it crashed. 

I have used EC2 Auto-Scaling for eight years.

EC2 is stable.

EC2 is scalable.

It has gotten much easier to launch an EC2 instance over the years. It's straightforward. We can sign up for EC2 and other web services in a few minutes. Maintenance is something that only comes into play during a disaster recovery scenario. 

I rate Amazon EC2 Auto-Scaling nine out of 10. I recommend setting up billing alarms and paying attention to them. With a cloud platform, it's possible to get a surprise bill if you do something that is running up charges when you aren't aware. 

We use EC2 to host applications.

The most useful feature is elasticity. You can scale up or down based on traffic.

The primary area for improvement is the pricing model. 

We have been using EC2 for around 36 months.

I rate EC2 nine out of 10 for stability.

I rate EC2 eight out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate AWS support nine out of 10. 

Positive

I rate EC2 eight out of 10 for ease of setup. The deployment takes four to six hours. Once the application is bundled, it is transported to Site Reliability Engineering, which hosts it. The deployment team consists of four or five people.

We've saved money on resources and infrastructure. The ROI can't be easily defined because it is a cloud service.

I rate EC2 seven out of 10 for affordability. 

I rate AWS EC2 nine out of 10. I recommend it for base production systems.

I use the product for its availability and scalability features.

The solution is highly scalable. If one of the instances has some issue and the server is terminated, or if the production is running on a server and it gets shut down, we would not have any backup plan. We will have to recreate another server and run production. The product helps us by creating another server automatically within a minimum amount of time. This process decreases the impact on production and downtime. The product fulfills all my requirements.

The existing instance should not be terminated during scale in and scale out. The product does not explain why a particular instance is terminated. There is no option to check the log either.

I have been using the solution for two years.

We have not found any bug in the solution in the last two years.

The product is stable. Around 100 people use the product in our organization.

We can easily deploy the product if we have the documentation. The document is good enough.

The product is cheap.

The solution is cloud-based. If one of our CPUs or memory has an issue or is being utilized more than usual, another instance scales up automatically. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.