Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

I use the solution for Jenkins web server, CloudFormation, and TerraForm. I use it for Linux and Mac servers. The list is endless.

The most valuable feature is the volume size they offer. Where I'm from, having a lot of storage is a problem, and the cloud provides you that much more. You could set a volume of maybe 20 gigabytes. If you use the right AMI ID, you get it at no extra cost. You just have to be very diligent when you're setting it up.

Another thing I love is the variety of AMI IDs that are out there, from Ubuntu to Amazon Linux to Mac and so on. There are so many AMI IDs that can service whatever problem the client has.

EC2 is not self-explanatory enough. If, while the cloud control tower is set up, they could give a lot of explanations as to what's happening, it would be very easy. For example, if you don't know an AMI ID, you could launch an instance, security group, and all those things. Without experience, you might set up an AMI ID that will cost you, or you may set up a site that's going to cost you, and you will incur a lot of costs, and you won't get to go free without paying the money that you've been charged. If Amazon had more explanations, clients could understand the solution better.

I've been using it for almost three years now.

I give EC2 a nine out of ten because I have had some programs when deploying the Jenkins server because of some configuration issues. When we traced back the configurations, we saw that the configurations were okay, but EC2 had problems. Some glitches happen once in a while that Amazon needs to solve.

I rate EC2's scalability a ten out of ten. It's the best.

The initial setup is straightforward, but you need some experience with it. I don't see any other complications apart from a new user not being able to use it without experience.

The solution doesn't take a lot of time to deploy. Once you pass a few checks and the installations, it takes a maximum of two minutes to deploy, depending on your Internet's latency.

EC2 is cheap based on two main factors: the AMI you're using and the volume size. You need to be wary of those things. If you use the free ones, you will not incur any cost. But if you increase the sizes, you incur costs to your accounts.

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a nine-point five out of ten. When using EC2, you need to have the bare minimum of experience so that when you run into certain errors, you can solve them before they get out of hand. Also, be wary of the services they add to your account, for example, the volume size, the AMI, and the configurations you add to your EC2 server. If you don't consider these, you will incur many costs. I have a friend who incurred almost $1,000 on EC2. He messed around with EC2, so he had to pay a lot.

My company deals with Amazon EC2 Container Service as a performance container management service and fault management system for telecommunication networks.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability. In terms of storage resources, the solutions need to be quick to provide users with options for growth. Based on prediction, the product sometimes allows you to grow or scale up quickly.

Pricing is an area of concern where improvements are required since the cloud services provided by AWS are not cheap. Due to the expensive nature of the cloud services provided by AWS, many people have opted for an on-premises deployment model.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's upgradability is an area with shortcomings requiring improvements.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for around three years. I am a system integrator, and my company provides software products.

My company has faced some stability issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten. The last time my company faced some issues with Amazon EC2 Container Service was when Amazon was involved in some internal work and did not bother informing users about it.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company requires Amazon EC2 Container Service to deal with its clients, mostly telecommunication companies with around 1,000 to 5,000 employees.

The solution's technical support was poor. I rate the technical support a two out of ten. My company usually tries to figure out and resolve the issues related to Amazon EC2 Container Service even though we are not well-versed with the solution. The solution's technical support team's issue stems from the fact that they look in the wrong places and are not knowledgeable enough to help users resolve issues.

Negative

Amazon EC2 Container Service is the platform with which I have had the most experience to date. Previously, I worked with clusters in an on-premises setup and didn't use a container platform.

I rate the product's implementation phase a five on a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. I don't see anything I can't do in the product, especially once I figure out how to do it.

The product's deployment phase can be completed in a few hours.

My company's clients have noticed a return on investment and benefits from the use of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

The more you use Amazon EC2 Container Service, the more you pay.

I rate the product's pricing an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. Even though I don't pay for the solution, I have observed and seen the product's price and budget based on the bills paid by my company and our customers.

Due to the issues faced by my company with Amazon EC2 Container Service's upgradability, we plan to move to Amazon EKS. OpenShift also has some functionality that helps with the upgradability part.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is not difficult to manage.

I recommend those who plan to use Amazon EC2 Container Service to initially go with a PoC phase and also look into the cost-benefit analysis over a long-term period before buying the product.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for a web application like an e-commerce or a basic site. I have a business site.

EC2 is an initial level with a nominal cost. As a customer, we need to approach an EC2 tool. Additionally, other instances are available at slightly higher costs. Hence, once the business is established and running smoothly, we can upgrade to another instance.

We use the EC2 for testing purposes or as a starting point.

We need RAM, CPU, and install cPanel. cPanel is a separate third-party tool. If we install an EC2 tool, it would be an interface for managing files and databases, making it easier to maintain them.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service as a customer and a partner for two to three years.

The product is stable. We need to skip the unnecessary servers or sometimes enable the autoscaling group feature to adjust based on conditions automatically.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight-point five out of ten.

We can increase the RAM, CPU, and hard disk for scalability.

We have used different hosting from different companies.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution's pricing is nominal. Also, it manages all the servers, mainly when certain servers might experience slowdowns. Amazon EC2 offers features that don't affect the website or application's performance.

If a customer requires a low-cost server, we suggest considering different options from various companies. Otherwise, we recommend exploring the offerings provided by Amazon EC2.

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

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service for running applications and data.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EC2 Container Service is its flexibility.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for quite a long time.

The solution's stability is almost perfect, but some outages occasionally occur.

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

The solution's scalability is perfect.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

We have seen a return on investment with Amazon EC2 Container Service.

We have to pay a monthly licensing fee for Amazon EC2 Container Service. The solution's pricing is acceptable.

I am using the latest version of Amazon EC2 Container Service. Amazon EC2 Container Service is a cloud-based solution.

I would recommend Amazon EC2 Container Service to other users.

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

My company uses Amazon EC2 Container Service as a backup.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is very easy to set up. The solution is not that hard to get around for beginners. The solution's setup phase is good, even though you may not have so much knowledge of the platform.

The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for three years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

End users are unpredictable, so I think there will be issues in terms of limitations and network issues.

The scalability of the product is fine. I don't use the product's scalability since it is not that high.

I don't intentionally plan to increase the use of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I have experience with OCloud.

The product's initial setup was very straightforward and not complex.

The solution can be deployed in less than an hour.

The deployment process of Amazon EC2 Container Service depends on why its users want to deploy the product in their environments. Make sure you have your infrastructure and IP setup in place. Once you have all the IPs and your infrastructure setup in place, you will be able to deploy Amazon EC2 Container Service within a few days. EC2 platform provides a very simple interface where you should use the IPs in your router in your virtual machine setup, and then the backup part of the solution should be good to use.

I myself manage the deployment and maintenance processes of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I take care of the solution's deployment phase by myself

There is no need to pay anything towards the licensing costs of Amazon EC2 Container Service.

I feel that others should try Amazon EC2 Container Service, but it all depends on what others want to deploy from the platform offered by Amazon. Cost-wise, Amazon EC2 Container Service is an okay product. It is better to look at comparisons before proceeding to move to a vendor for a product.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

I use servers to make web services, mainly to complement the WordPress solution.

EC2 and anything else on the AWS container is reliable. I can trust it.

It's quick and easy to have the solution working.

The solution needs to be more usable. It has a node interface, and it would be better if it could be renewed. It's the same thing with WordPress, Google, and any other company doing the same thing. It would be very good if Amazon went to the front by winning that war of usability.

I've used Amazon EC2 Container Service for 20 years.

The solution is much more stable than IBM. I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

Amazon Container Service is all about scalability. You should use AWS instead of something else.

It was straightforward to deploy the solution.

The ROI depends on the business. Big companies see an ROI with it, and small companies don't.

The solution is pricey. There are three things a solution can be or have: it can be quick, cheap, or have quality. We can't have three at the same time. If you have money and time, you have quality, which is the case with Amazon. Amazon is pricey, but we can do things quickly, and there's quality.

However, you can have the free tier with Amazon, where it will work for small companies, but only for a short time. If you only want a small VPS, use Google, which will be free forever.

If choosing the solution, contact an expert. I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service a ten out of ten.

We had a new product, and we used Amazon Elastic Container Service to do a proof of concept for it.

We used Amazon Elastic Container Service for deploying a web application.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is more stable. We didn't do a stress test on the solution, but I could say it cost much less as compared to EC2. We would have needed three or four EC2 instances for the same application, but we could do it on a single incident EC2 container.

Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult. You need to have experience in order to set it up.

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

The solution's scalability is good. I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten for scalability.

Since we took a docker image from the Amazon repository, the solution's deployment was done in a day or two.

If you want to scale without the traditional methods, the solution is a bit cost-effective.

We had virtualized the solution, and we were using it on EC2.

The solution has a great offering for docker images. We didn't have to work from scratch. We could go to the marketplace and directly get the image from there.

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

We have hosted 50 websites using Amazon Elastic Container Service. The websites are used by our end customers and internal employees as well.

ECS is a useful platform.

The orchestration of the workloads running in ECS needs improvement. Additionally, they should automate the auto-scaling features for containers.

We have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service since 2019.

I rate the product’s stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten.

In the beginning, when it was a new service, there was not a lot of documentation and online support available. So, we regularly contacted the product’s technical support and development team.

ECS’s initial setup process is complex as we have to follow many manual steps. I rate the process a seven out of ten. It takes a few minutes to a few hours to complete.

The platform is inexpensive.

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service a seven out of ten. I advise others to use AWS EKS than ECS.

We use the solution as a docker service to run the containers.

We use ECS whenever there are multiple programs to run. We can containerize the programs without worrying about the versions of the applications.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to run the containers directly on the cloud.

The solution could provide more reliability. There could be an option for the customers to manage the services. Also, there need to be more custom features that would allow customers to access the ECS containers and deploy them.

We have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the solution's stability a six out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

Even if the solution is costly, you will definitely see ROI if you have many applications.

The solution's cost could be reduced.

The solution has multiple versions. You can choose a version compatible with your system. I rate it a seven out of ten.

I am using AWS ECS combined with AWS Fargate in order to orchestrate our containers. To explain what that means, I will give an example. Suppose you are running a microservices architecture in which you have multiple containers within multiple services. ECS is the tool that helps you orchestrate all of that, by providing you with the ability to scale up / down your containers and monitor them. Also, with ECS, you can identify any problems or bugs with your containers.

We had a microservices architecture operating in this manner, and we needed some kind of solution to help us manage and orchestrate all our containers. Here we had a choice between something like Kubernetes or ECS, and we chose to use ECS because we didn't have a very large or complex architecture with many containers. Instead, we only have a few containers, yet they still needed orchestration in many ways, which ECS was able to provide.

For me, the best feature of ECS is Fargate because I don't have to manage anything. Instead, everything is managed by AWS and all I have to do, in essence, is configure my containers and deploy them.

That said, whether this feature is appropriate for everyone depends on the sensitivity of your data. I was able to make good use of Fargate since I do not have especially sensitive data running on the containers.

Visualization is an important factor for me, and I don't think that the visuals within ECS are good enough because it doesn't show you all the details you might need to see at a glance.

Another aspect that could be improved is that our monitoring within ECS depends on other services like CloudWatch, for example, and with this arrangement you have to constantly switch between screens when navigating around. Because of this, it's difficult to take a look at your monitoring data, or even just to set up, and it can be very frustrating.

Perhaps it would be possible to improve this situation by having the ability to include everything on one status page. For example, if there is a service or container that is exhibiting a bug or is in some type of loopback mode, when I click on it, I could be shown the screen with all the errors displayed right there.

I didn't see any issues, especially in regards to ECS with Fargate. There are two ways you can run ECS; one way is with EC2 (Elastic Cloud Compute) and the other is Fargate. When you run ECS with EC2, it means that you manage your own servers and your own containers. However, with Fargate, AWS manages all the servers and containers behind the account. For some people, it might be the case that when you're using ECS with EC2, your issues are more related to your own management methods rather than anything to do with AWS itself.

I contacted support one time when I needed to find some information related to launching containers. I wanted to find out how to access certain container data, such as container ID and so on. Once I reached their support, they managed to help me find this information.

The quality of support you receive depends on your subscription because when you have an enterprise subscription, their response is very quick. However, when you are not part of an enterprise, they might not help you right away. Regardless, when we're talking about how well they help, they are indeed able to offer technical solutions and they are straightforward about it. 

Positive

The setup is not that hard. When I began using it, I found that it's not very intuitive, but at the same time it's not difficult.

I would suggest, however, that AWS offer more courses or tutorials on how to use it. I know that they teach how to use ECS through their certifications, but even a few two to three minute tutorials on their YouTube channel would help people a lot. Personally, I had to look through many resources to find good knowledge on it, but when you eventually find the solution, it gets more intuitive. 

When it comes to how long it takes to deploy your containers within ECS or their orchestration tools, this really depends on your architecture, and how you have set things up. If you have set everything up properly, it takes only a matter of minutes to have your application up and running.

I don't know the exact amount we were charged for our use of ECS, but I do know that it can be costly, especially when there is a bug or an error caused by default configurations. When you configure your containers to be launched with special configurations, such as with CloudWatch events, sometimes they fail to launch and they enter into a locked state. Each time this happens, all the configuration behind the container creates itself again, making it such that the costs can quickly go up if you have any bugs in your configuration.

Besides that issue, I would say it's not that expensive, but can still be costly in a way.

We considered using Kubernetes instead of ECS, but we went with ECS because our architecture and amount of containers did not warrant the complexity of using Kubernetes.

My advice, first of all, is to do your research, and do it in detail. Verify that ECS really satisfies all your requirements, especially when you are also using Fargate because with Fargate you are not managing the servers yourself. A good tip is to watch some tutorials that already exist online, so you can start your process with that.

To be honest, using a tool like Kubernetes to orchestrate your containers can be a very difficult process, especially when setting up Kubernetes clusters, and there are a lot of small things that you need to do and understand. However, compared to Kubernetes, ECS is very intuitive and extremely quick to learn. This is why I would definitely recommend ECS over Kubernetes if you don't have a highly complex microservices architecture and you simply need to set up your containers quickly.

I would recommend ECS mainly for its stability and its ease-of-use in helping to manage containers, despite that there are some improvements that they could make, such as better visualization and other improvements to the technology itself in order to orchestrate even more complex architecture.

Overall, I would rate AWS ECS a six out of ten.