Amazon Elastic Load Balancing Reviews

The primary use case is for learning purposes. A load balancer is used to redirect sites. It is used for managing traffic in cloud infrastructure, utilizing the traffic of multiple cloud servers or a website uploaded on AWS, and matching traffic in simple terms.

It can help manage traffic. That is our biggest benefit in Windows and in VNet both. Also, it can increase the response time because manually attaching some volumes and storage can take more time, but in load balancing, it takes less time.

The overall EC2 instance is best for learning purposes. I have used the application load balancer because it has an easy-to-understand interface, which is beneficial for traffic management. Elastic Load Balancer can distribute traffic easily through various gateways.

I am not aware of any features not available because I have less experience using Elastic Load Balancer, focusing more on Application Load Balancer.

I have hands-on experience with load balancer for around one month.

I find it stable, and I do not face any performance issues currently.

I find it scalable. I can scale the EC2 instance where I can create an instance of approximately twenty GB and attach the S3 bucket and volume to increase its storage.

I have not required any technical support because I am using the free tier of AWS. However, I understand that if we face issues and pay for AWS, they provide technical support in three steps, with varying levels of service depending on payment.

Neutral

I do not work with any other products for load balancing. I primarily use AWS and application and Elastic Load Balancer.

The initial setup was easy due to the user-friendly AWS interface. You first need to create the instance because, without an instance, the load balancing is useless. Then, you create the target group and attach the target group to the load balancer.

I use the free tier of AWS, so I do not have much experience with setup costs or licensing.

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing because it is easy to understand. The UI is very understandable, and AWS is more stable than GCP and Microsoft Azure.

I am using load balancers to send requests across multiple EC2 instances, ensuring that the traffic is distributed evenly. I have two EC2 instances in different availability zones to manage traffic effectively. Additionally, I utilize Elastic Load Balancing to distribute incoming application traffic across multiple targets, such as Amazon EC2 instances.

The Elastic Load Balancer facilitates the distribution of incoming application traffic, which directs requests to various servers, preventing overload on a single instance.

I find the target group feature valuable for conducting health checks on instances. This feature helps in maintaining service availability by ensuring that traffic is directed to healthy targets.

Improvement is needed in the integration with Terraform, especially in writing scripts for creating load balancers and target groups. The process could be made more user-friendly.

I am currently undergoing training and have been working with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for one month, starting this October.

I have not experienced any stability issues. I find the solution stable.

Elastic Load Balancing handles traffic management effectively across multiple instances.

I may use Alibaba Cloud load balancers in the future, but I have not used any load balancing solution other than Amazon Elastic Load Balancing.

The initial setup was straightforward. I used Terraform to create the Elastic Load Balancer, and the process involved connecting the load balancer to the target group.

I have considered using Alibaba Cloud load balancers but have not implemented them yet.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I host virtual machines and multiple web servers in AWS and use Cloudflare as the front end. I don't use the front end offered by AWS. The developer recommended using Cloudflare because it's so much easier.

I have only deployed Elastic Load Balancing for two companies so far, but we evaluated it for the university where I previously worked. Unfortunately, they didn't take our advice and went with it. It required a lot of extra effort to integrate it with the firewall.

The feature that I like the most is the scalability. The solutions I build often have many pieces, which are very complicated. If a client comes to me with a design, my developer has made this as a template or a cloud formation script. It's a design on paper, and I want it executed a certain way. I can do that quickly and repeatedly with AWS. That is a considerable advantage because I can take that template and do it five times in different zones. That is an excellent feature based on a template, et cetera.

The reporting could be simplified so that the client sees a report of what they cached at the end of the month and the number of hits. It should have metrics above and beyond their Google analytics, etc. You can't do that with the solutions from AWS. You have to build sophisticated cloud trails, reports, dashboards, etc. The setup is significant, and it's hard to manage. You'll need to hire someone or pay a consultant on a regular basis to manage it, and it's not for the faint of heart.

I have been using Elastic Load Balancing for three to four years.

Elastic Load Balancing is a robust solution and highly reliable, but it requires a lot of care and feeding.

I rate AWS support 10 out of 10. 

Positive

Elastic Load Balancing could be easier to set up. Other technical experts might say it's easy. My definition of easy is pointing the website to it, and it's working in 10 minutes. It takes a couple of hours to set it up. You need at least one person or maybe two if you have a significant web presence.

I see a return from using AWS. If you have a website with a lot of content built on the fly, you want to go with AWS.

I don't know precisely what it costs, but they're charging you for the amount of data that you transmit. You pay a small fee to have the services enabled, but you're really paying for the amount of data that goes through that VPC.

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. 

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is used to automatically scale up and down the number of server nodes we have. For example, if we wanted to provision an EC2 machine as our website server, this one machine might not be able to handle an increase in traffic.

If the traffic increases, AWS will automatically add one more machine, which is an exact copy of the other machine, and that will take the additional node. With Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, you set the minimum and maximum limits. For example, at minimum, you should have two servers; at maximum, you can have four servers. So the number of servers can oscillate between two and four depending on the traffic.

The most valuable feature of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scaling. We just have to enable the load balancer, set the minimal and maximum limits, and it will handle everything by itself.

We faced a problem once. The different machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have separate IP addresses. These machines, in turn, connect to our MongoDB Service. Since MongoDB has an IP address-based firewall in the middle, it will only allow IP addresses you have whitelisted.

So whenever the solution creates a new machine, we have to add the IP address to our MongoDB whitelist. Whenever it deletes and recreates, the old IP address becomes invalid. This causes our connections to break, and our customers don't get the data. The machines created by Amazon Elastic Load Balancing have different IP addresses, which we are not able to whitelist or predict.

My organization has been using Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for more than one year.

Two people are using the solution in our organization.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing’s initial setup is very easy.

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.

Elastic Load Balancer is used to maintain requests and distribute traffic on target groups. The target could be any type of instances, IPs, or Lambda functions. Most of the time, the target group is an instance.

I appreciate the checks that Elastic Load Balancer performs with the instances to ensure they are running properly. 

Additionally, the Grid feature is impactful as it checks that instances are properly configured and running.

Sometimes the target group takes too much time to configure or to be seen on the internet, especially when configuring through ISV tools.

I have been working with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for more than one year.

I find Amazon Elastic Load Balancing to be stable.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is scalable.

Neither I nor my team have needed to escalate to tech support for now.

Positive

I worked with Azure Load Balancer previously. AWS is very user-friendly compared to Azure, which requires many steps to configure a simple load balancer.

The initial setup is sometimes complex, however, after working on it for one or two months, it becomes very easy.

I create a separate security group for Elastic Load Balancer, then proceed with the target group or listener rules.

Amazon Elastic Load Balancing has shown great performance and efficiency, especially in high-traffic e-commerce applications during sales times.

I have experience with Azure Load Balancer.

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 use Amazon Elastic Load Balancing with EC2 instances to distribute traffic. I also incorporate Lambda for serverless technology and disaster recovery for backup across multiple availability zones. 

Additionally, AWS Backup is utilized for regular backups, and VPC is used for network configuration and traffic management.

The most valuable feature is the Lambda function due to its utility with serverless technology. It allows deployment of code without a server and facilitates connection between multiple services. This automatic functionality is highly beneficial for serverless technology. 

Additionally, Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is excellent for traffic management and security.

Clients sometimes face issues with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing, and it can take a long time to detect these issues. Although Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is effective for managing traffic and security bases, the delay in issue detection is an area for improvement.

I have been using Amazon Elastic Load Balancing for around one year.

I have not faced any stability issues with Amazon Elastic Load Balancing. I know how to use it effectively, which helps in avoiding problems.

The scalability of Amazon Elastic Load Balancing is straightforward. It allows for easy scaling up or down of data.

The support team at Amazon is excellent. In my experience of generating more tickets with AWS support, they were very supportive and understanding, solving issues swiftly within one or two days.

Positive

I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing because it is very useful for companies that have a heavy server load. It is beneficial for managing traffic and ensuring security. 

I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing as eight out of ten. While it is excellent in its core functionalities, it sometimes takes a long time to detect client issues, which affects its perfect rating.

We use the tool for load balancing.

The tool integrates well with Amazon native services. Its valuable feature is integrations.

The product should be made as an alternative to Amazon services. It would be easier for us if you got one service that is available everywhere.

I rate Amazon Elastic Load Balancing's scalability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's deployment is simple. Follow the instructions from AWS, and it can be completed in a day.

I have no issues with the tool's pricing. 

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

Our company is an AWS partner that sets up, integrates, and supports the solution for our customers. We use the solution's load balancing and auto-scaling features. 

Forty-two current staff members use the solution and one of our banking customers exceeds one million end users on the customer-facing application. 

The solution offers good load balancing. 

The solution needs to guarantee stability because multiple loads behind a load balancer can cause service unavailability.

I am not sure if this service currently exists, but it would be beneficial to customers to offer a network load balancer from IoT devices.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is generally stable but there were two issues that shut down service. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is easy to scale but my customers don't use that feature. 

When multiple loads behind a load balancer caused service unavailability, we completed a support ticket. We knew the exact load with issues and requested a restart to restore service. We knew this was the proper resolution based on past experience with the same issue. 

Support was not ready to agree that the load had actually gone down which delayed a restart to restore service. Our experience would have been better had support acted immediately on the service ticket rather than taking time to investigate. Support response was fast but the resolution was not and as a result, our customers were not happy. 

Positive

The initial setup was easy with no issues. 

The solution is priced well and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Our customer required the use of this solution so we did not evaluate other options. 

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.