Amazon Elastic Container Service vs Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform comparison

"Good documentation and very straightforward to implement and use."

"Implementing the product has helped me monitor the parameters. I utilize tools like CloudWatch and AWS systems to track these parameters. If any issues arise, I alert our developer team to address and resolve them. The product helps to have a global file system. Also, it helps in data replication from region to region."

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

"In seven years, we have not faced a single second of downtime."

"The containerization is a valuable feature for us."

"ECS is flexible and easy to use."

"I like Amazon EC2 Container Service's elasticity."

"The solution is simple to access."

"The initial setup process is easy."

"Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."

"The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."

"I find the security features and use of operators in OpenShift Container Platform highly valuable."

"OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."

"Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."

"The usability and the developer experience. The platform has a centralized consultant that is easy to use for our development, operations and security teams."

"The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."

"For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations."

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

"The product should improve its price."

"Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult."

"Billing is extremely complex."

"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."

"EC2 is not self-explanatory enough."

"Sometimes, the instances fail under the ECS container cluster, and we have to manually go and find out the black sheep in the ECS container instance. We had an issue earlier where one of the instances under the ECS container cluster went down, and we were not able to identify that instance. The instance got terminated, but a new instance did not come up. Therefore, I had to manually get that instance up. It could be optimized better. In production, we normally cannot sustain such things. It can be optimized in terms of instances, durability, and serving the requests of customers."

"One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."

"I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copy/pasted to other applications in the development process."

"We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."

"The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."

"Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment."

"The initial setup can be hard."

"OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."

"Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available."

"Licensing can be purchased directly from AWS or used with existing licenses, depending on the company's preference. The licensing structure is complex and depends on factors such as machine size, number of processors, and Container size. Companies have dedicated staff members managing license considerations full-time to find the most cost-effective options. Also, I have seen some companies opt for a combination of AWS and Azure, using more of Azure for Microsoft licenses due to potentially lower costs compared to AWS."

"We have to pay a monthly licensing fee for Amazon EC2 Container Service."

"The pricing is good."

"Our client is paying between $400 and $500 USD per month for this service."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is worth the money."

"They offer a pay-as-you-go pricing model for the product."

"Amazon EC2 Container Service is cheap."

"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."

"The price is slightly on the higher side. It is something that can be worked on because most of the businesses now have margins."

"OpenShift Container Platform is highly-priced."

"The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected."

"It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution."

"If you buy the product for a year or three, you get a lot of discounts...I feel that the product is worth its cost, especially since setting it up can be done with just a few clicks."

"The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey."

"OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS."

"It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working."