Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service for Kubernetes and hosting sites. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a flexible product from Amazon. You can put it in the Auto Scaling group for high availability. There are also a lot of choices for pricing. 

The product can become expensive if you don't choose what you want. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service's deployment is easy and takes three minutes to complete. 

I rate Amazon EC2 Container Service an eight out of ten. 

Our services are relatively straightforward to manage. We have a limited number of servers compared to some others. When it comes to billing, our plan is flexible, but it may not be the most suitable option for medium-sized enterprises.

They handle the backup process quite well. They automatically encapsulate it, including container backups, without relying heavily on the client's involvement. This is a significant advantage compared to other providers where clients often need to manage the process more independently. It's a feature that I find suitable and beneficial.        

For instance, we've opted for a fixed monthly fee, which covers us for a broad range of data usage. However, with Amazon, the billing tends to increase exponentially as data usage grows, which poses some financial challenges for us. We've also integrated AWS and Synchronoss services into our setup.

I also believe there are limitations in terms of upgrading. The software has the concept of dedicated servers that you can manage. However, an issue arises when you can't match one operating system with another that you've already purchased. You can't simply merge them; instead, you have to buy a completely new one. This limitation has caused some challenges for us.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for two years.

Initially, we operated our servers on-premises. However, as we aimed to improve the quality of service for our clients, managing local infrastructure became challenging. To address this, we made the decision to move to cloud providers. We chose providers like OVH, where we procured Bandwidth servers and Ultra servers. These providers offer a flat-rate billing plan, which includes servers with specific resources like RAM, processors, and databases. You configure your setup, and they provide you with a monthly bill. On the other hand, Amazon's billing system is more dynamic. It adjusts the billing based on the demand and usage of the server. This dynamic billing approach has posed certain challenges.

There are no specific issues with the service itself; it's quite good. The only concern we have is the billing structure, which may not be the best fit for medium-sized enterprises like ours. The service is more aligned with the needs of larger corporations.

My advice would be for them to stay up-to-date with the current market trends, especially in the cloud services sector. While Amazon is a leader, it should be open to adapting and being competitive in the evolving market. The flexibility in server configuration is crucial, and the billing plan can remain as it is. However, most cloud server providers tend to have similar billing plans based on the server's performance and usage, so it's essential to align with these industry standards.

I rate the overall solution a six out of ten. 

I use Amazon ECS to easily set up and manage resources for my applications, similar to Kubernetes but simpler. I work with ECS through the command line, and I installed a tool called QCTL to make it even more user-friendly. With ECS, I can write code to describe my applications, and then I can quickly deploy them. It is a very efficient way to handle containerized applications, whether it is a simple website or a complex system.

The best thing about Amazon Elastic Container Service is its availability and reliability.

There don't seem to be any improvements needed for ECS at the moment. I will consider them once I get my projects running smoothly and understand the costs better.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for six months.

I would rate the stability of ECS as an eight out of ten. While it is generally stable, there have been some issues, especially when working on client projects where troubleshooting was needed. Stability can be affected if someone doesn't have Terraform installed, as it is crucial for provisioning. It is essential to have good knowledge of what you are doing when using ECS. Overall, it is a good service, but some factors like Terraform's expertise can impact stability.

I would rate the scalability of ECS as a nine out of ten. While I haven't explored all its features extensively, based on what I have used so far, it is highly scalable and capable of handling increased workloads effectively. In our organization, quite a few users use ECS for various tasks, similar to how many users access certain files or resources. However, this information isn't available to everyone in the company, and it is restricted to specific departments or teams. Our company has a substantial client base that relies on ECS for their needs.

I have not had any need to contact technical support.

The initial setup of ECS is generally straightforward, but it is essential to have some command-line experience to avoid potential mistakes. The deployment time for ECS varies depending on your internet speed, but it typically takes a maximum of five minutes. It works well with Terraform and Kubernetes, allowing you to create resources efficiently. Overall, it is a user-friendly and efficient tool for managing containers.

My advice to new users would be to have a good understanding of how ECS works, especially in the command line. While the web interface is helpful, knowing how to work with the command line is crucial, especially when dealing with provisioning and managing resources on virtual machines. The more you learn about the command line, the better you will be at efficiently working with ECS and providing effective solutions. Knowledge in this area is highly valuable. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon EC2 Container Service to host a variety of applications for our clients. We use ECS to test machines, production machines, and other environments.

The security is good with 24/7 availability along with location. The cloud services are readily available. For example, if all three or four servers hosted in the cloud fail at once, the service will be transferred to other machines. This is one of the things that makes me most likely to use this cloud service.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved. For example, ECS should be integrated with multiple teams and cloud providers to make it more accessible and secure. Additionally, AWS should provide more security policies for ECS resources to prevent unauthorized access. Support could also be improved.

I have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service for more than two years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

The product is stable. The security line has been deployed. I have never experienced any instability. I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

Some people are good and are helping us.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy. Generally, everything is written in clear and understandable language. If you know English, you can clearly understand all of these things. You can also change the language, so it's not too complex.

The solution is expensive, but not too much.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

ECS is flexible and easy to use. AWS, itself manages the work nodes, scaling, and monitoring. It includes handling alerts for infrastructure and clusters.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It easily dies. 

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service's scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support services are good. I contact them for troubleshooting purposes.

Positive

The initial setup is easy compared to EKS.

I rate Amazon Elastic Container Service an eight out of ten. If you are beginning to use cloud services, ECS is the best and easy-to-use product you can go for.

I like Amazon EC2 Container Service's elasticity. 

The solution needs to improve backup and pricing. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The product is very scalable and we have around 400 users for it. 

The tool's setup is easy and I would rate it a ten out of ten. The tool's deployment is fast and takes around one day to complete. If deployment is for an enterprise, then you need to go through the architecture. You need to go to the dashboard and put in all the required details to deploy it. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is priced high. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is a good platform since you can run multiple things on it. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

We host our production application on EC2. We host the application and take regular backups to create mirrors for our customers. We also use the solution’s firewall to save us against any threat.

The most valuable feature of the tool is its ease of usage. We spin off new servers and host our applications on those servers. The best thing I like about the product is hosting. It is super easy. Features for creating a server and hosting it is all builtin within the solution. I don't have to build a backup service. It is already available. I don't have to build a database as well. It is already built. I can just use any existing DB and then connect it directly to the DB instances and use it. Everything is ready to use.

We’ve been hosting our production application on the product. The most important criterion for us is downtime. In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime. It is the greatest thing. We have had zero downtime in the last seven years. Nothing can be better than that.

Billing is extremely complex. The whole concept of billing is so complicated that we never understand it. There is an upfront cost, and there is a network cost. It is impossible for me to calculate the cost, understand it, and inform the client about it.

We are never sure of our end cost. Sometimes the cost blows up and ends up being five times more than what we calculated. There is no way to understand the cost. I want the solution to have a better billing system and dashboard to understand the billing.

The solution could be more intuitive. If I'm using a service and my backup has gone down, there should be a notification or suggestion to help me understand what I can do. It should explain how I could have avoided the issue. EC2 is huge, and we'll never know all its services. The tool should have a way of suggesting to me what I can do better.

It can be through notifications, tutorials or through their customer service team. The product could provide CI/CD services in the future.

I have been using the product for seven years.

The tool’s stability is perfect.

The tool is scalable. It can be scaled according to our needs. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. In our company, more than 100 people use the solution.

The technical support team is pretty good. The response time is very quick.

We have used Azure, and it provides similar services. However, we do not have a lot of experience in Azure.

The initial setup is super simple.

I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

The billing is really painful. The product must provide some intuitive notification to inform us if we are not doing something the best way. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this tool is mainly for backup from operational data.

It has helped the company provide a stable and reliable environment.

The most valuable feature, after using Amazon EC2 Container Service for two years, is to set the availability and also for network throughput.

There is room for improvement in the pricing of Amazon EC2 Container Service. Also, mainly on the network issues to access the container.

We have been using Amazon EC2 Container Service in a specific project here for two years. However, we don't use the latest version. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service is stable. I would rate the stability ten out of ten.

The solution has some limitations. Mainly the network issues with accessing the container. Hence, I would rate the scalability of Amazon EC2 Container Service a seven out of ten.

The customer service and support team is good. We can find all the information on the online portal.

Amazon EC2 Container Service is very good and easy to use. It also integrates with Okta Solutions.

It was really important to our project to have a stable environment on the cloud that would be reliable. It was important. It is not easy to give a number to this, but for sure, it has value.

We emphasize that utilizing any cloud solution with payments in dollars is a huge amount for our liaison here.

For someone who wants to use Amazon EC2 Container Service, I would say it is a very good solution. Especially for people who have to plan a lot in advance to define exactly what they need and to plan the capacity and also the way they will use the institute and also order possible solutions connected to them so they can plan for their costs.

Overall, I would rate Amazon EC2 Container Service solution as an eight out of ten

It has helped our organization greatly and especially on weekends because we have many transactions as our users are buying some kind of tools and paying online.

The solution is easy to use. When you have nodes like Python, it's easy to plug and play.

The documentation and usage for the users can be better because for new users it can be very hard to understand and use the solution. They can add small images and accessories.

I have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution. I rate it eight out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution. I rate it five out of ten.

The technical support team is good but if you are looking for any documentation then it is not very helpful.

The initial setup is easy and it is deployed on the cloud. 

I have seen ROI with the product's use. 

The pricing is good.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are using the solution to run our apps and services. We make use of Docker to run our API services. So, we use ECS as the container service to run all of our Docker images.

Its most valuable feature is the ability to work with Docker images. We just have to give it a Docker image and run some parameters. It keeps the process going for us. It's been great. We don't have to worry about where and how it gets deployed. We just know that it's going to run and we can contact it at a particular address. It integrates perfectly with AWS's service mapping feature and allows one ECS container to contact any other ECS container using a service name. It's almost like an internal DNS thing. If we want to expose it to the internet, we just put a load balancer. It passes requests from the load balancer to the relative ECS services. It also helps for scaling–we just have to add one in a new container. That's pretty cool.

I see they have changed the console a bit to make it easier to use. Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions. Currently, I have to set up all of those by myself.

We have been using the solution since October 2021.

The whole engineering team of six people at our organization uses the solution.

There were some issues with the setup. It wasn't the easiest to get going as opposed to something like SFTP Gateway. It's a learning curve. You need to learn what a cluster is, what a task is, and what a service is. There are no industry standard concepts that could be applied to different technologies. You need to learn ECS-specific concepts. It's similar to Docker Swarm or other resource management technologies like Kubernetes. They have similar concepts, so if you come from that world, you might understand it a bit easier. There is some AWS-specific stuff that you just need to learn. Once you get over that learning curve, then it works pretty nicely. I would rate the setup procedure as a four out of ten.

The price of ECS is not bad. It is based on usage. It works on a per-hour pricing model.

I would definitely recommend the solution. Once you get the procedure right and set a pattern, it just works. I have used different use cases, languages, and frameworks. Everything works nicely once you get the pattern right. The solution scales by itself, and you can set the threshold of how to scale it. Once it goes to 80% of CPU for five minutes, it scales up automatically, and then if the CPU usage goes down, it scales down. You don't have to pay for that upscale cost over time. You need not have to worry about servers or machines. You just have to worry about your containers. It's great.

Also, deploying to ECS is pretty easy via whatever CI you use. It's generally quite easy. It also integrates with Amazon's ECR service, which holds the Docker images used for the services and containers. It works nicely with the ECS.

If you have credentials or secrets that you might want to use as environment variables in your applications, you could inject them at run time into your containers. ECS caters to this with a pretty easy task definition like syntax. You just have to specify the secret name in the task definition and ECS will know when it starts, and when it needs to pull this secret into the container at run time. Thus it's not vulnerable to an attack where someone can snoop on your task definition. It's not in plain text and it only works if you give your container explicit permission to pull the secret.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten.