Once, the external network load balancer was not working because of the server-side change. The server had changed the certificate to a TLS version. We were unable to edit the security policy as a TLS version with the network load balancer. So, I created the classic load balancer instead of the network load balancer, and we're able to edit the security policy as the TLS version. I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing to other users. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
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.
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.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, Citrix and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: April 2024.
We have not used the network load balancer so far in Amazon. We have only used the application load balancer. As far as an application load balancer is concerned, it doesn't require any additional features.
What is an application delivery controller (ADC)? An application delivery controller (ADC) is a network component that is primarily used to optimize and manage traffic flow as well as client connections to both web and application servers. ADCs also help with application acceleration and assist with application security. They are typically housed in a data center and their capabilities can be implemented using a hardware or software device. Because they can be installed via hardware or...
Once, the external network load balancer was not working because of the server-side change. The server had changed the certificate to a TLS version. We were unable to edit the security policy as a TLS version with the network load balancer. So, I created the classic load balancer instead of the network load balancer, and we're able to edit the security policy as the TLS version. I would recommend Amazon Elastic Load Balancing to other users. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
I work mostly on DevOps tools. I like to work on AWS. I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
One should use it if one wants their application to be resilient, highly available, and scalable. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.
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.
I rate the solution as an eight.
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.
I rate this solution a nine out of ten.
I would recommend this solution. I would rate it an eight of ten.
We have not used the network load balancer so far in Amazon. We have only used the application load balancer. As far as an application load balancer is concerned, it doesn't require any additional features.