AWS Elastic Beanstalk Reviews

Elastic Beanstalk is a great fit for a product that's already open to using Amazon Web Services, but has a team that does not want to work with environment setup. Furthermore, it's really only a fit for situations where the configuration needed from the team fits within a stack that Elastic Beanstalk offers. Even if you're interested in using one of the stacks they do support, you have more ability to modify configurations if you're handling all the setup and configuration on your own.

AWS Elastic Beanstalk is very well suited to scenarios where an application uses a distributed service architecture that relies on multiple server instances and where reliability, scalability, and ease of maintenance are critical points. It excels in simplifying the deployment and staging process; and given the depth of documentation and good resources around the product, is a quick solution to the hard problem. In situations where large monolithic applications need to be hosted, there are more suitable platforms that provide virtual machines.

The CLI made getting started incredibly easy. Tutorials made it fairly simple to get up and running without too much fuss. That said, it can be a very complicated solution if all you need is a basic hosting platform. However, it can scale out rapidly and does this amazingly well.

Application health monitoring is well suited as I am very happy with its performance. I don't face a major challenge as of now; still struggling to learn a lot about the EBS feature.

Scenario where Beanstalk would be well suited is when a developer wants to push multiple versions or updates to an application - with its lightening fast configuration and deployment options. There is also a host of automation tools in place to assist. AWS Beanstalk would be less useful (or where it falls short) is if you make frequent changes and have stored old versions - there's a limit for that, that some may not know about until they hit it.

Suited: Sites using a server side scripting engine like PHP and will experience bandwidth spikes due to press releases or campaigns. The scalability will help in keeping the overall monthly costs down.

Not Suited: Sites that do not need a server side scripting engine. It would be less expensive and more efficient to use AWS Cloudfront.

This is great for small services and applications that need to have up-time availability or are business critical. Pretty much everything that you have on the one computer in the corner (You know the one. It was a leftover computer that turned into a dev/testing box, then became the production utility box) Yeah, everyone does that at least once.... Put ALL of those projects into elastic beanstalk now.

Perfect for deploying and managing single-container apps, quickly, easily and reliably. Scales and balances very well. Works well with our Node.js environment. It is also easy to set up multiple environments per app.

It is not a perfect fit if you're deploying multiple apps in one instance.

Elastic Beanstalk is perfect for getting an application deployed with little effort. It is less suitable for applications that do not require load balancing or auto-scaling. An AWS EC2 or Lightsail instance would be more appropriate for such needs.

We were under the impression that this was a reliable service, but our experience is exactly the opposite of that.
Bottom line, if you want support that gets back with you in less than 24 hours, do not use these people.

It is a fantastic solution if you take the time to learn what is behind it. Look into what you can do with Elastic Beanstalk extensions in particular - they are incredibly effective. Since I've used it mostly for deploying basic PHP applications, I can recommend that it is a very useful service for those purposes. It might not be the best thing to use for something that needs customized services to run on your server.

- It works perfectly with other AWS resources like CodeCommit, CodePipeline. If you are working in an AWS environment, this is a MUST.
- Once you understand how it works, you can use it to easily scale and manage your application.
- It certainly is better than its competitors.

- More AWS resources to manage. Great! Though AWS is easy, with so many options, it is getting tiring to learn more new AWS stuff. So be careful, EBS isn't hard, but isn't easy either.
- If you have a single server, you don't need it.

It's best suited for large applications that get variable load and traffic. It's simple to click and configure; scaling options are extremely powerful. It's very useful for companies of any size as it gives a nice and clear overview of application deployment status that even a non-tech person can understand.

Great for any quick deployment of any application spanning across multiple technologies without need of setting it up manually and deploying it manually and the application is based on micro services which are stateless. Not appropriate if the application is not standalone and is interacting with other servers, say high availability systems.

AWS Elastic Beanstalk is definitely the best when trying to build large applications. It has the flexibility to start out small and reduce costs, but then it can easily be scaled and parsed out so that it can handle countless users. I believe that Netflix even recently started using AWS as it's solution. The times when it is less appropriate is if you are wanting to create a very simple website, are not trying to grow your website, or are very inexperienced with software development. You don't need a power drill when a hammer will do.