The primary use case for Amazon EKS involves microservices and micro frontends.

The most valuable features of Amazon EKS are its scalability features.

There is room for improvement in the interface of Amazon EKS. Additionally, they are involved in activities like pipeline management, pod checking, and error logging, which could suggest areas for further improvements.

I have more than three years of experience working with Amazon EKS.

I would rate the stability of Amazon EKS ten out of ten, indicating it is highly stable.

I would rate the scalability of Amazon EKS an eight out of ten, suggesting it has high scalability.

I do not have experience contacting Amazon's technical support.

I was not involved in the setup of Amazon EKS.

I would recommend Amazon EKS to other people for various reasons. That said, I also rate this solution seven to eight out of ten overall.

Our primary use case is related to our ecommerce solution, which is very high in terms of data in the database and products. It has one hundred thousand first line items. We developed a system connected with AWS services to translate search keywords into different languages and improve search results accuracy on our ecommerce site.

The scalability has really helped us a lot in enhancing the customer experience and ensuring quick results. The ROI is really good, especially when compared with other services on-premises.

Amazon EKS provides good support. The integration and stability are clear and reliable. The scalability is excellent, allowing us to efficiently handle customer experiences and improve operational efficiency.

Sometimes, we face minor connectivity issues. However, it depends on the applications we are using. Improvement might be needed based on different use cases.

We have been using it since 2015.

The stability of Amazon EKS is clear and reliable.

Amazon EKS's scalability is clear and has improved our operational efficiency a lot.

The customer service and support are good, and we have a paid subscription that provides priority support.

The initial setup was handled by third parties. It involved some complexities, and appropriate inputs were necessary.

We worked with a third-party team for implementation, including many developers.

We did several ROIs, which showed positive results. It's particularly beneficial compared to investing in hardware.

The licensing cost is acceptable.

Before implementing, ensure thorough research and ROI analysis. The implementation should be handled by experienced personnel.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use EKS in our company to run containerized applications. I work in the container ecosystem team, and we manage EKS clusters for our developer teams so they don't have to. We provide them with the necessary tools to run on top of the cluster.

EKS helps us simplify and speed up cluster management. We don't have to take care of cluster updates; we just initiate the update, and AWS handles it. The same goes for some of the AWS-managed add-ons.

The biggest improvement is that we now have more time. When we shifted the responsibility of cluster management and updates to AWS, we had more time to develop solutions that make life easier for the developers.

Application deployment is more automatic. They don't have to issue cluster commands; they can simply do a commit into our internal GitHub Enterprise, and our tooling will deploy or update the application on the cluster. That's probably the biggest benefit because we had time to develop such solutions.

From my personal perspective, I think it's good that we can use AWS CLI to manage the cluster, and that way, we can automate the work via scripts. Of course, the way that we just issue a command and AWS handles the work, like with cluster updates, is also valuable. That's probably one of the reasons why we use it.

Sometimes I have trouble because, in our corporate network, there are various networks, etcetera. It's difficult to connect to some of the clusters, and it's easier to go through the UI when troubleshooting something. At some points, the UI seems limited to me with the functions it provides.

You can get information like what kind of port is running on the cluster, but I haven't really explored the UI so far, so it's difficult for me to see the logs, for example. Or sometimes, you are only limited to the basic Kubernetes things.

We have certain customizations installed in the cluster, and for that, you really have to use kubectl from the command line. You are not able to use the EKS UI to list certain custom resources. So maybe there can be some kind of improvement, but maybe it's just me that I haven't really explored the UI that much.

I have been using it since February.

I don't really remember any issue with EKS, the product from AWS as is. There can be some issues when there is a bigger outage on the AWS side; it's either some kind of network outage when we cannot reach AWS itself or something similar, but I wouldn't blame EKS for it.

When we had problems with the cluster itself, I think it was more about some issue that either we as a team introduced by human error, from some configuration mistake, or our customers sometimes made mistakes. And maybe there are issues when the application running on top of EKS somehow gets into some loop or something and then doesn't work correctly, but I wouldn't really attribute that to EKS.

Because I've been in the team for a short amount of time, I don't really remember any big issue that was caused by EKS itself in the past six months at least.

It is scalable. We use the cluster autoscaler tool that spins up a new node when we need more, and that works nicely. So I think from the scalability point of view, it's okay.

In the last six months, I don't really see any issue with scalability. We run around one hundred clusters. Some of them are quite small, really just the basics where we are running free master nodes in the free availability zones, just to make things according to best practices. So, really a minimal cluster.

And there are also some really big clusters with over a hundred worker nodes. Overall, I think it's quite big. And with EKS, we are able to manage it quite well.

I have some experience with AWS support, and it was good. We were trying to solve something with one of the add-ons, and I think we solved it within a couple of days. We even had a call with one of the support engineers. So I think it worked out well.

The issue was regarding one of the AWS-managed add-ons. I remember that we clearly had some kind of misunderstanding between us and technical support, and it seemed like either we were not able to explain it correctly or the guy wasn't able to understand us. But I remember that somehow we solved that issue. So at the end, it was okay.

The deployment process of EKS was done before I joined the team.

For me, EKS UI is nice, and it was quite easy for me to get familiar with. I find the AWS CLI quite nice to use as well. I've been working in IT for some time now, so I have some level of experience. I guess these things come sort of naturally to me now, such as how to use the tools that are provided by companies. It's usually no issue for me.

From the maintenance point of view, I don't know much about how things are backed up, etcetera. I think that is exactly why we use EKS because we don't really have to take care of cluster backups. We can simply issue a command, and the cluster will update. If we were to do cluster updates manually, it would be more work. We would have to update the worker nodes and then update the master node one by one. AWS now handles all of this. So I think from the maintenance point of view, it's great, and that's why we use it because it's now much more simple and faster for us.

We still see the benefits of using this solution because we are using it. And we actually plan to transfer all our workloads to EKS if things were ideal. But for some legal reasons, we still have to manage some on-premise clusters, but I think the benefits are there.

If you have the money, I would recommend the EKS product to other users who are looking into implementing it. It's a good tool. It really takes some of the management burden off your back.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

For EKS, we deployed a Django application. The application built the whole image and stored it in ECR (Elastic Container Registry). We stored the code repository in GitHub, but the image was in ECR. We also had another repository for the Kubernetes manifest files. So we were deploying it in a different image, and the code was in a different image. We had a whole pipeline for deployment, from CodePipeline to ECR, and then from ECR to Kubernetes.

I work with different AWS solutions, such as Elastic Beanstalk, AWS Lambda, DynamoDB, and VPC. I use services like EC2, S3, and VPC every day, so I'm not including those. I've also used API Gateway, and currently, I also use AWS Bedrock.

The good thing was the integration of services. The only thing we had to think about was how we were pushing the code to GitHub or Bitbucket. After that, everything was taken care of by AWS.

Everything was connected: the code and the real-time deployment. Testing was done within the same pipeline using CodeBuild. CodeBuild was handling multiple tasks: testing the code, deploying it to ECR, and then running it on AWS Fargate for development or testing. Once it was working fine, we had an approval stage. After approval, we deployed it to EKS using the command line from the same AWS CodeBuild process.

The scalability of EKS is good. We've compared it with multiple platforms, and we've also worked with GCP. There are more good options available in GCP compared to EKS.

But the good thing about EKS is that we can use it for serverless deployments using Fargate. It gives you two options: deploy on EC2 or deploy on Fargate. EC2 runs 24/7 and costs you money, but Fargate only runs when you need it. So EKS was really helpful for saving costs with that serverless capability.

I would like to see a warm-up time for AWS Fargate, similar to what GCP Cloud Run has. This would improve internal security. I would also really love to see lower costs compared to other cloud vendors. AWS can get quite expensive.

I've been working with EKS on and off for the last two years. Some of the projects were my own, and some were development projects.

They have good documentation and lots of blogs on Amazon AWS, so we mostly follow those. We haven't reached out to technical support directly. We had a plan for technical support, but it took them more time to fully help us.

Sometimes the issue is on our code side and not on AWS's side. Getting the customer service and support involved in our whole process takes a long time. It's better to research for a few hours and fix it yourself rather than waiting for a week or so.

GKE gives you really good monitoring and logging, where you can see every bit of information flowing in your environment. AWS provides the same thing with CloudWatch, but it's much easier in GKE to see what's exactly going on. So monitoring and the transparency of what's happening would be one thing AWS needs to improve.

The pros of EKS are that it makes deployment really easy. You just need to package your image in ECR, and then everything goes very smoothly. You don't have to worry about running or managing Kubernetes. It gives you a managed control plane, and they replicate the control plane over different regions. So there's very little chance that it will go down. Reliability is really high with AWS.

When we started we had an issue with rollbacks. We had problems because we had to specify certain AWS parameters in order to deploy it properly. We consulted the documentation and resolved it that way.

We did some testing, and that took about one month with it. Then we started with a very small infrastructure on EKS, migrating some of our traditional websites to EKS directly. So, the initial setup took about two months.

But we didn't use it for microservices; we only used it for two services: one was our platform service, and the other was Redis.

In my case, I handled the deployment part. I had a manager, so I just took his approval and gave him the deployment design. He was overseeing everything, but I was doing almost all the AWS work. The developers were really helpful in making the code run correctly with the image versioning.

Users have to maintain things. For example, we faced an issue where we had a lot of requests coming in, and we weren't ready with enough resources at the time. We had to manually increase the Kubernetes nodes. That was an issue with horizontal scaling. It was our mistake because we didn't automate it.

We shifted from EKS to GKE (Google Kubernetes Engine). We are saving around 20% with that change.

I already have recommended it to many people. If you're using AWS for other services, definitely go with EKS because it doesn't make sense to move to another cloud vendor if you're already using everything in AWS. The integration is really good. You get AWS WAF (Web Application Firewall) on top of it, load balancer, GuardDuty, and Inspector. So security-wise, it's really nice to have EKS surrounded by those security tools.

My advice would be to try to go with AWS Fargate initially. Try to understand how ECR (Elastic Container Registry) works because it also costs you money, so make sure your image isn't too big. And if you can, go with AWS CodeCommit, it makes things very fast. And for EKS, they can use Fargate with EKS as a service. So, users don't have to worry about scalability and reliability. It's totally managed from the user's end.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The use case for Amazon EKS is for a payment gateway corporation whose applications run on microservices. Their software team develops cloud-native applications. They use Amazon's public cloud for these applications but find it expensive. They want a less expensive solution for their customers.

We suggest using Amazon EKS open-source solutions. By using these solutions on-premises, they don't have to pay Amazon.

Amazon EKS is a useful solution for modern, cloud-native applications. It offers both horizontal and vertical scaling, which is a big advantage. The tool can also help manage costs while maintaining high availability.

Integrating Amazon EKS with other AWS services is easy if you know how to connect your applications and understand programming. It depends on how your application uses modern programming languages.

The main thing to improve with Amazon EKS is the price. However, these services can be very expensive. For example, in countries like Turkey, the cost is too high. That's why we offer our cloud solutions locally. We developed hybrid solutions, but their prices are still very high.

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

The solution is very scalable. We have two customers for Amazon EKS.

We don't use support. Our customers use it.

The tool's deployment is easy. The deployment process is very simple. First, create an account. It's very organic. After that, choose the service that will be used for the project and create new services. Provide your credentials to connect to the environment. If you want to use a private link, you'll need to use a private connection.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. If you want to start quickly and have time constraints, you can use Amazon solutions because no time or effort is needed to prepare your environment for the market, and no hardware or infrastructure requirements are required.

It can affect team productivity with a few customers. Productivity depends on the customers' knowledge. If their developers or software team are familiar with using hyperscale issues, it is very productive to use it.

If you need off-site backup solutions, object storage, or to check your data's secondary version for disaster recovery, you can use AWS Backup or Amazon EKS service, like S3 buckets. It's very useful.