Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

I work for cloud transformation with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for major UI transformations of products and services.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) operates on a pay-as-you-go model, so my company can get whatever we require from the tool.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I have experience with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for two years. My role in the company is to manage all the architects and resources. I am an implementer who develops applications and deploys them.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

My clients who use the product are mostly medium-sized businesses.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I rate the initial setup phase of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) as a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in thirty to forty minutes. After the tool's process was streamlined in our company, it could be deployed in only five to ten minutes.

The product is expensive.

The product supports our company's container orchestration needs since we mainly use it for management and deployment purposes while also covering areas like orchestration and auto-scaling.

The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes.

Speaking about the feature of the product that has been most impactful in managing our Kubernetes-based environment, I would say that I am not into the deployment part of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) since I have to focus more on strategy implementation.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is only one of the services that I have used, and it is a big application. The tool has a lot of UI built on Angular, which is then converted as a microservice and clubbed with Java Spring Boot before deploying it on Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

The product offers security and access management features, but there are some areas, like encryption, where some improvements can be made. I rate the product an eight out of ten for security and access management features.

The product's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines is good. I rate the tool's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines an eight out of ten.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We need Kubernetes to manage some applications and containers. We use this product as an organizational service.

It makes it easier for us to scale the systems. We don't have to worry about standalone systems failing. It employs high availability. 

The usability is great. You can use it out of the box. When you use Azure with Kubernetes, it provides a managerial layer to make it easier to create environments.

Azure basically provides you with a management layer that does the device handling of our two monitors. It actually makes it much easier to handle containers and manage everything seamlessly.

The stability is okay.

The solution can scale.

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

There are no missing features.

It needs better secrets management. It would be nice if they could handle the management of personal information more efficiently.

Debugging can be a difficult process. 

From day to day perspective, we've been happy with it.

I've used the solution for three years. 

It's largely stable. That said, we had a few issues where we would have to do some debugging.

The stability is okay. However, debugging is not easy. If it does go down, it's hard to examine the logs in the way you could with an on-prem solution. 

The solution is extremely scalable. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

Our users don't even know the solution exists. It's not visible. However, many people use it every day. 25 developers and engineers are exposed to it.

We are increasing usage and plan to increase more. That's our goal. 

Microsoft support is better than IBM's. It's got good support.

We were using Elastica Container Service and AWS.

Ultimately, we had no choice but to use this solution as this is an Azure shop.

The setup is straightforward. 

We are using the latest version. 

If you plan to use this solution, you have to be good at troubleshooting, and you need to understand containerization really well. You need to know how to debug and understand other Azure products as well as Kubernetes. This is not for non-technical users. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We utilize Git as a hosting platform for our SaaS offering. Our focus lies in the financial services sector, encompassing lending and credit-related functionalities. AKS serves as the foundation for our operations, enabling us to host a broader platform that includes medical services and more. Typically, we construct a Kubernetes-based platform to facilitate access for our CyberArk teams, who deploy a wide range of services. Presently, our production environment comprises financial services, along with upcoming releases such as medical services and HR solutions. Our objective is to migrate our products, along with relevant knowledge, from traditional servers and application services to more advanced PaaS offerings. This serves as our primary use case.

The solution has benefited our company because we can scale to our needs.

The most valuable features of AKS are the full array of capabilities and robust security.

AKS has the potential to enhance pricing by enabling us to explore ways to increase cost transparency. However, it's important to note that this refers to computation costs rather than client costs. Our objective is to optimize efficiency and minimize unnecessary expenses. Therefore, we aim to identify which services within the platform can benefit from improved consumption patterns. This is the focus of our ongoing research, with the goal of maximizing computational power within the cluster. We aim to avoid situations where resources are reserved but not utilized effectively. Additionally, our strong emphasis on security ensures that we adhere to all relevant compliance standards, bolstering our overall trustworthiness.

While AKS itself may not require specific improvements, we are exploring various avenues for enhancing our overall architecture. For instance, we are considering the adoption of OpenShift due to its superior security enforcement capabilities. Although it is possible to address security concerns within AKS, we have found that OpenShift offers more robust solutions in this regard. We are actively researching and evaluating other options, such as Microsoft's offerings, to identify the best fit for our architectural requirements. Our focus lies on driving architectural improvements rather than solely relying on AKS to address these concerns.

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately four years.

Throughout the cluster update process, we experienced a few expected glitches, including networking outages and region-specific disruptions. However, we were able to effectively handle and resolve each of these issues. It is important to acknowledge that such challenges are inherent to the system and are accounted for within our Service Level Agreement (SLA). We have developed strategies to mitigate and manage these glitches, ensuring that they do not significantly impact the overall performance and reliability of our services.

We use the solution on a constant basis.

The solution we offer is highly scalable, adapting to varying needs. Its scalability is designed to align with the limits and preferences you set, ensuring financial safety and control. The solution automatically scales up and down based on workload demands, effectively managing resources. It incorporates robust insights tools that continuously analyze the system's performance and determine optimal scaling actions. In certain cases, manual scaling may be preferred based on your own assessment, and the solution accommodates both automatic and manual scaling modes. The choice of scaling approach depends on the specific Service Level Agreement in place, allowing for flexibility and customization.

I rate the scalability of AKS an eight out of ten.

Overall the support from AKS could be better.

Support is available in various forms to address different types of issues. There is a general support option accessible to everyone, allowing for access based on the criticality of the problem and its impact on your business. While premium support is also provided, there are instances where the evaluation of a technical issue begins with basic questions, even for subscribers. This can lead to frustration as it may require spending additional time repeatedly describing the situation. Consequently, it would be beneficial for the support process to be more agile. When an issue occurs with AKS or within a specific region, it affects the entire application. Unless you have multiple clusters in different regions for high availability, relying on a single cluster is often the norm. In such cases, paying double just to account for potential regional crashes may not be feasible or desirable. Therefore, it would be preferable to include such considerations in the SLA or contractual agreement. This issue is not unique to AKS and can be observed with other cloud providers as well. The general support process involves engaging with people, and despite automation, different levels of experience and knowledge can influence the support experience. Consequently, it may take one to two hours to synchronize and connect with someone who can provide the necessary assistance.

I rate the support from AKS a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience using various similar solutions to AKS, and I have observed that issues and their effects are generally comparable across different cloud providers. The overall quality of service is similar. However, when comparing AKS to on-premise solutions, the managed service aspect is a significant advantage. With AKS, we don't need to handle cluster management, head management, or master nodes. Additionally, we benefit from pre-configured networking and disk setups, providing a fully functional production-ready solution with ease. On the other hand, with on-premise deployments, more effort and expertise are required, making it a costlier option. However, having an on-premise solution allows for greater customization and control, including the ability to choose specific operating systems that align with customers' IT policies or security requirements. This can be cumbersome when using a managed service, as we lack control over these aspects. In certain cases, we have deployed on-premise solutions to address specific needs, particularly in private SaaS setups. However, for the SaaS itself, we primarily rely on the SaaS offering from Azure or other cloud providers. Comparing the costs, on-premise solutions tend to be more expensive due to the additional management requirements. It's important to note that managing on-premise solutions often requires senior resources, and it's not feasible to rely on junior team members. This factor, along with the need to hire and maintain such resources, should be considered. For example, using the cloud may result in a reduced need for DevOps resources by around thirty percent compared to on-premise solutions.

The initial setup process is straightforward, requiring just a few mouse clicks. It is automated through the use of ARC, our automation tool. We utilize a configuration file that is triggered automatically by our CI/CD pipeline. When we need to create a cluster for a specific purpose, we initiate the process, and within a few minutes of the cluster being up and running, the site begins its deployment.

The deployment can be done in approximately five minutes, but it depends don't the resources available.

I rate the initial setup of AKS a nine out of ten.

We do the implementation of the solution.

We have received a return on investment, of approximately 80 percent.

The pricing of the solution is dependent on the choice of virtual machines, specifically the amount of memory required. There are various options available, ranging from around twenty-five to even more choices to select from. This flexibility allows you to customize the pricing based on your specific needs. From my perspective, virtual machines in the cloud tend to be slightly more expensive compared to virtual machines offered directly by data centers. However, this cost is offset by the benefits of a managed service. Taking the overall picture into account, the managed service approach is advantageous. The pricing for the platform can vary, typically ranging from three hundred euros per month to two thousand euros per month, depending on the specific requirements and setup you choose.

You have the flexibility to choose different payment options based on your needs. You can opt for a pay-as-you-go model, where you pay for resources on a monthly basis. Alternatively, you have the option to make upfront payments for one year or three years. Choosing the three-year payment option can provide you with up to a forty percent discount. The payment plan you select depends on the projected duration of your usage. If you are confident that you will require the service for a longer period, opting for the discounted upfront payment can be a cost-effective choice. The configurable nature of the payment options allows you to align your budget and experience in utilizing these services effectively.

I have evaluated many solutions.

The usage of the platform is generally straightforward and easy to understand. However, it is advisable to remain vigilant when it comes to pricing, particularly if you have enabled automatic elasticity. While you can set up budget limits and other controls, it is important to be aware that once you start utilizing cloud services, you may increasingly realize the power and benefits they offer, leading to a growing need for additional services. Additionally, it is recommended to exercise caution when using Synapse, a specific component of the platform.

I rate AKS an eight out of ten.

We use AKS for most of our Azure cloud services, including performance testing and other applications we deploy on an Azure Kubernetes cluster. 

AKS is easy to use. We can scale up and down as needed with AKS, which saves us money on our cloud costs. 

I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface.

I have used AKS for around six months.

I rate AKS nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate AKS eight out of 10 for scalability. 

The initial deployment was challenging because I had trouble understanding the documentation. I didn't have this issue with Google Cloud Platform or AWS, but Azure seemed a little difficult. 

I rate Azure Kubernetes Service eight out of 10. I strongly recommend it. 

We use the product mostly for development purposes. Some are in the pilot phase for customer usage, however, there's no real production workload active right now on these services. It is mostly for dev test and pilot purposes.

It has made life much easier because I don't have to manage Kubernetes myself. It saves time and efforts on the infrastructure side, letting me hand off service administration jobs to junior admins without the fear of them screwing up the environment.

I don't have to furnish my own infrastructure in order to run containers or Kubernetes. It makes life easier if you want to run containers at scale. The integration with Azure tools is also straightforward, making it easy to configure storage for the containers.

The setup process could be more user-friendly, and additional documentation would be beneficial. Additionally, the overall documentation could be improved to be more concise and available, similar to the documentation provided by AWS.

I've used the solution foor about one and a half years now.

The stability of the product is very good; we have not encountered any major issues.

Scalability seems to be pretty good based on our experience. We haven't done a huge scale-out so far. Whatever scaling we've done has been smooth.

The customer service and support from Microsoft have been a disaster. Sometimes, they are reachable; sometimes, they're not. Some tickets have been open for six weeks. The support personnel are friendly yet are often unable to push the right buttons to actually move things within the Microsoft organization.

Negative

We are actively pursuing multi-cloud engagement. We are still using Azure for certain services, but for several new workloads or services, we will probably be switching to AWS.

The initial setup process was really challenging the first time. It required getting accustomed to different names and configurations compared to regular Docker or Kubernetes.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not cheap but is just about affordable. It is okay in terms of pricing but doesn't stand out as exceptionally reasonable.

The main competitor and preferred solution would be Amazon's ECS as it is very good.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) works. That said, it is not my preferred solution for running containers in the cloud. I would strongly prefer to use Amazon for critical workloads due to better documentation and support. I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Our primary use case for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is containerizing and deploying microservices applications for high scalability within our environment.

The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages.

In terms of cost perspective, they could make the product more affordable.

We have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for the past year.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable platform.

The technical support team is knowledgeable.

It is easy to create a Kubernetes cluster. It is developed and managed automatically. The pipeline setup takes two to minutes to complete. However, setting up configurations and other components might take a week.

Azure Kubernetes Service offers a pay-as-you-go licensing model.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) streamlines container deployment and management through our Jenkins pipelines. The continuous integration and deployment process involves fetching the code from Git, building it, containerizing it with Docker, and then deploying it.

The scalability features have the most positive impact on our operations. As we experience a substantial increase in the number of users and the traffic to our applications grows yearly, it efficiently handles the heavy workload and concurrent transactions.

Its managed services streamline scalability without the need for extensive capacity planning compared to a self-managed Kubernetes environment. This approach enhances operational efficiency and aligns with similar offerings in other cloud platforms, making managed services a preferred choice for many organizations.

It is a highly reliable and secure product. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We began utilizing AKS this year. Our aim is to embrace cloud-native practices, and Kubernetes is an excellent choice for achieving that. Additionally, Nicola seems to be well-suited for our needs. Therefore, we decided to adopt Kubernetes as our platform for software development. This allows us to enable the app team to effortlessly create infrastructure using the infrastructure scope. While we still rely on virtual machines, it is solely for the purpose of visualization, not for hosting the service. Our focus remains on building specialized software.

AKS provides a convenient solution for developers. When working locally, developers can leverage containerization technologies like Docker and Docker Compose. However, when it comes to testing environments, the Infrastructure as Code feature of AKS allows for easy setup of the entire testing environment. The team can collaborate and make necessary adjustments, while developers can switch back to their local environment whenever needed. The staging environment follows a similar pattern, as the same template can be applied, enabling quick hosting of the entire infrastructure. This approach saves a significant amount of time in infrastructure creation. Additionally, it adds another layer for the DevOps team, reducing their burden of dealing with cloud infrastructure details and allowing them to focus on capabilities. This streamlined process can be replicated across multiple projects, making it a valuable aspect of AKS.

The advantage of AKS is somewhat greater than that of Kubernetes, such as those provided by Google Cloud or AWS. However, the unique benefit offered by Microsoft is its robust CI/CD capabilities, along with the Azure feature for building workflows. When you combine the entire ecosystem, AKS becomes an excellent choice, particularly for enterprise applications.

Microsoft is known for its groundbreaking desktop operating system and has developed an efficient and user-friendly application called Orchestrate. It serves as a business workflow management tool, allowing enterprises to streamline their processes effortlessly. Additionally, Microsoft now offers the Logic application, which further simplifies workflow creation for businesses at an enterprise level.

AKS could enhance its functionality by introducing a blueprint feature that streamlines and expedites the process. With a blueprint, users can leverage pre-defined configurations, including some common survey elements, reducing the need for extensive customization and allowing us to focus on our core business activities. Additionally, if the blueprint covers security aspects, it would be greatly beneficial, as it eliminates the need for us to build security expertise from scratch. Currently, we encounter challenges during cloud onboarding, security implementation, and adapting to Kubernetes. Although Microsoft may not consider these as their direct responsibility, providing a blueprint similar to what they offer to developers would be highly advantageous.

I have been using Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately one year.

I have not had a bad experience with AKS. It is stable.

I rate the stability of AKS an eight out of ten.

The scalability of AKS is good enough for our current business. If people want to have higher scalability, they move to Amazon AWS.

I rate the scalability of AKS an eight out of ten.

We are a very big organization and we rely on our internal support.

The setup of AKS can be complicated.

We have seen a return on investment. 

I rate the ROI of AKS an eight out of ten.

We are facing a significant challenge regarding OEM licensing. The issue arises from the fact that certain licenses required for our own purposes are not provided by Microsoft's licensing. Consequently, we are unsure about the most suitable mobile license provisioning model offered by third-party providers.

The software necessitates licensing, and it becomes a complex issue when we provision multiple virtual machines with that software installed. Managing the licensing model becomes challenging as we face uncertainties regarding payment to the vendor. For instance, if we initially create three virtual machines with high demand but later require a hundred, the payment structure becomes unclear.

I rate the price of AKS a six out of ten.

The price is expensive but a lower price can be found. There are various different types of licenses.

My advice to others is to be aware of the in-depth setup.

I rate AKS an eight out of ten.

In general, building services within this solution can be complex and demanding, particularly in terms of the investment required for DevOps and SecOps. If your team lacks extensive technical expertise, it might be challenging to start directly with Kubernetes. However, if you have individuals with sufficient internet skills, you can leverage the scalability and simplicity offered by Kubernetes. Here, simplicity refers to the consistent experience compared to migrating from on-premise to the cloud. Nonetheless, the investment in pre-existing knowledge, appropriate SKUs, and skilled personnel is crucial. Applying Kubernetes is still not a straightforward task and requires careful consideration.

We use AKS as part of our CI/CD pipeline.

We utilize a combination of custom microservice applications and open-source software, including tools like AKS. Additionally, some of the open-source applications we employ are accessed through subscription models. The primary tools we use are web-based applications, and Microsoft services play a significant role in supporting our traditional services.

There are concerns about potential disruptions or outages, given the power infrastructure challenges in our country. This is why we are considering alternative cloud options. There is room for improvement in automation processes, as well.

I have been working with it for five years.

We had a positive experience within the Azure Cloud environment, but the connection between clients and on-premises resources can be challenging. This is a significant concern for us because, at times, our compound fiber experiences outages due to firewall issues. In some instances, even with a side-to-side connection, we've encountered stability issues. It's important to note that this is not solely an Azure issue but rather a broader challenge we face.

It offers good scalability features.

Their support is exceptional, and we've consistently had a positive experience with them. If I were to rate their performance on a scale of one to ten, it would be a solid ten.

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. We didn't have any issues with it.

The deployment takes a few days. We have a dedicated team of engineers, typically numbering between three to five individuals, who are responsible for managing it.

It is a cost-effective solution.

It is very user-friendly and incredibly straightforward. It allows us to establish infrastructure rapidly, making it our preferred choice over other providers. I would rate it ten out of ten.