Amazon Elastic Container Service Reviews

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 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.

It depends on the specific needs and requirements. For example, if it's for customer care on Windows Server, they need to onboard the EC2.

Performance is our top priority. So, if we need to deploy on a high-specification machine, we can choose it from the software. If we just need a low-specification one, we can just choose it based on the requirement handling software configuration.

There is room for improvement in the licensing costs. There can be better licensing costs. 

We have been providing this service for two years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

It offers good scalability. You can scale down and scale up easily. You can easily adjust resources based on your needs, whether public or private deployments. Complex configurations are not required for scaling or scheduling tasks.

We have two customers using this solution. 

The technical support team is knowledgeable and customer-friendly. They offer prompt and helpful assistance.

I have experience with Alibaba Cloud and Cisco's container platform. However, I prefer the Amazon EC2 Container Service for its ease of use, scalability, and integration with AWS services.

However, Alibaba is on-premises, and EC2 is on the cloud. The best option depends on regulations. Some industries and competitors have regulations that require on-premises solutions, while others allow cloud solutions. The specific needs and regulations will determine the best option for each client.

It depends on the data manager and the specific client. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment takes approximately 5-10 minutes. 

You simply access the portal, choose the appropriate configuration, and upload your code. No complex technical knowledge is required.

The licensing is expensive. The licensing is available on a monthly basis, yearly basis, and a pay-as-you-go licensing model. 

It's user-friendly and requires minimal technical expertise. 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.

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. 

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

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.

We use Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) for efficient container orchestration. We start by creating Docker containers and then storing them in ECS. It facilitates container deployment, offering flexibility between serverless execution and traditional EC2 instances. It enables automated deployments, providing an option to edit them as needed through integrated CI/CD pipelines.

The product's most valuable feature is service discovery functionality. It is an excellent feature impacting cost reduction. It facilitates the seamless connection of backend services to the front end, utilizing local domains. Additionally, the integration of with Atmos, another service management tool by AWS, enhances its functionality. It shows the impactful configuration provided by the AWS team.

There is room for improvement, particularly in logging and monitoring for the product, while integrating external third-party tools like Elastic Log Kibana and Grafana or Primatius. They could provide easier options for third-party integrations similar to internal AWS services.

We have been using Amazon Elastic Container Service for two years.

The platform has high stability with no downtime for any services. In case of unavailability, we can refer to AWS documentation or contact the technical support team for SLA services.

The scalability depends on specific user cases. It helps us handle increased traffic or workload. When clients require login deployments due to application version or UI component changes, we utilize CodeDeploy in conjunction with AWS CodePipeline for deployment. While there is no downtime during these deployments, scaling the application might take some time due to scheduling considerations.

The technical support team is very friendly.

The initial setup is easy. AWS manages the deployment with predefined configurations.

They offer a pay-as-you-go pricing model for the product. It is inexpensive compared to Kubernetes, which considers a minimum number of microservices.

The new users would need help to deploy the CI/CD pipeline for the product. They need to follow proper documentation. It also provides some settings for automated deployment.

We integrated ECS for a logistics project. It is working fine without any downtime for five microservices.

I rate it an eight out of ten.