Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

I found the Helm deployment feature of the solution valuable.

The cost of the solution is extremely high. Both Amazon and Azure cost extremely high. We think it over ten times before giving the solution to clients. No matter how many offerings the solution provides, it becomes a burden that you are not getting back your invested money from customers. This is the reason why these two services do not take off too much.

For example, you will end up paying somewhere around $20-30 per customer for data every month, which is extremely high. If we try to figure it out with some other things, we may come down to a certain sense. It is a couple thousand people, so a thousand times higher. I think that no business owner would want those things.

I have been using this solution for around three years now.

Azure is stable and reliable.

The solution gives you good scalability. It helps you scale it as big as possible. However, the scaling comes with huge costs which can make customers go bankrupt.

I have not used tech support yet since there is so much documentation and other resources available. I find it to be very straightforward. It depends on how well you use it. I think they have done a good part since we do not require much support. We have reached out more to the support team of AWS since they have been very responsive.

The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it.

The deployment was not easy and took a couple of months. It depends on how you scale the solution. The reason for taking time is based on the way you architecture it.

The licensing cost is high and depends on how much you use the solution. The nodes will cost you eight to ten thousand dollars per month for small organizations. Hence, small organizations will end up paying somewhere around $80,000-100,000 for very minimal data usage.

I would give the solution a nine out of ten since it is good. However, I would only recommend AKS to billion-dollar businesses that don’t mind spending. It is more for data storage, blockchain-related services, etc which offers very limited opportunities. So, I wouldn’t recommend it. There are multiple other ways to do it and improvise your profits rather than spending on those services.

AWS and Azure are cloud services. They are also known as enterprise serverless architecture. Previously, we used to have server rooms where we used to deploy on-premises. Since the inception of AWS and Azure, they want you to deploy all the data onto their cloud. They offer microservices to facilitate interaction in the cloud. That is where they make money.

We did the deployment for a production-based project. AWS has its own powerful Kubernetes. However, the cost of Azure was higher than Kubernetes at that time. But, there was something additional called Azure deployments. If you have your own product and want to deploy it into multiple client-related places or on-prem solutions, you need to download it as a blueprint and then upload it onto one more system, which is one great thing about Azure that Amazon does not provide.

Kubernetes services, also known as elastic services, come with more clusters and is also very expensive. Suppose, your product needs to be used by just four organizations and a couple of hundred of their users have minimum use, you will end up paying eight to ten thousand dollars in just a month. This is very, very, very high. Not many clients prefer paying a premium price for just a little data.

Both of the solutions need to be very cost-effective. I have found many clients struggle the moment they hear the cost aspect of the solution. If you have millions of data, then you will need to spend millions of dollars just for the hosting and clusters of the Kubernetes services. This is the reason why many people are not preferring the solution.

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.

I use the solution for micro-services deployment. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) has helped reduce downtime. 

I have used almost all the features of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), but the Front Door and Service Bus are the most vital features. Our organization also uses Azure Database, Insights, Log Workspace, and Azure Functions.  

The cost of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is extremely high. 

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

Based on the support, documentation and user-friendly interface of the solution, I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is very easy to scale, and in our organization, we are using VMSS for scaling. The product is more suited for enterprise-level companies. 

I would rate the tech support an eight out of ten. As our company has availed a basic plan of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), the response time is longer in a few cases where I have resolved the issues on my own through extensive research. But in most cases, I have received effective help from the support team which I truly appreciate. 

Positive

I have worked on the solution's setup for multiple environments and found the deployment to be easy and hassle-free. When using Terraform to configure the solution, I faced some issues at one point, which were resolved by the support team of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). 

At our company, we follow a complete cloud-based model for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). 

I have worked with Azure and AWS solutions, but comparatively, the price of Azure products is much greater. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is an expensive solution, and our organization's clients have complained about it. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is a bit expensive compared to AWS solutions, but other than that, there are no advantages to choosing another solution. 

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) can be easily integrated with other tools of the Azure environment. For our company projects where the solution is being used, I have onboarded them at a later stage, but rarely have I had to seek help from the support team. 

Documentations for the product are easily available. I would overall rate Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend the product to other users. For enterprise projects, where the clients have a heavy budget, Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) can be adopted without any doubt. 

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 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.

The AKS service is used as container orchestration for a product based on microservice architecture and as computing layer abstraction.

The solution helped the organization improve the availability and scalability of the product by making use of self-healing and autoscaling features offered.

The solution is a managed Kubernetes, allowing to offload of a large part of the maintenance tasks to the cloud service provider. This allows the team to focus more on features that have a greater business impact, rather than on maintenance tasks.

The solution provides a good foundation but there is a good amount of work to do to reach a full-fledged production grade platform.

There is an entire ecosystem of tooling around the solution. 

Th solution could be an improved by providing an add-on ready to install for the most common tooling around Kubernetes.

I have been using the solution for almost three years.

The platform is pretty mature.

The solution can easily adapt to the change of demand.

The initial setup has been very simplified and optimized compared to the effort required to deploy a self-hosted solution.

AKS provides a good level of elasticity allowing them to scale horizontally the platform based on demand.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance is much easier than an on-prem/self-hosted Kubernetes platform. 

Many of the tasks are automated by the cloud provider.

We have two primary use cases of this solution. One, we deploy microservices for our customers using the Kubernetes cluster. For example, we have deployed Kafka on Kubernetes as well as Azure functions, which uses the same Kubernetes cluster. 

The other use case is for our internal usage. We only have microservices and Azure Functions, we don't have elastic or data. We do have a tight integration between Azure services and Kubernetes. The concept is called KEDA, or Kubernetes event-driven autoscaling. This means that if there are no services messaging you, Kubernetes usage will be zero. However, if there is a burst of traffic for my services, Kubernetes will create accordingly. 

The most valuable feature of AKS is that when I am sitting at the cluster, I can ensure compliance. Compliance is easy right out-of-the-box with integration to Azure Security, Azure Active Directory, and Azure Policies. The entire cluster is secure by design and not added as an afterthought. 

The other feature I like about AKS is that because of ransomware attacks, Microsoft has released specific guidance on threat matters. AKS is based on framework. This framework uses the proper guidance architect to tell you how the cluster should be designed. 

Another valuable feature is that AKS tells you exactly what you should do with each threat. It will guide you to improve the cluster, deploy something on the cluster, operate the cluster, and when you are trying to heal the cluster. It is very actionable.

Unfortunately, when a microservice fails, Azure can take up to 60 seconds to broadcast an alert to the monitoring agents. For a lot of the microservices, this is too late, particularly for serious failures.

Microsoft would benefit by offering enhanced learning and certification. Kubernetes is now mainstream and becoming more and more integral. Creating an Azure Kubernetes certification would ensure there are specialists in the market that could adapt best practices in a more structured fashion. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for three years.

The solution is stable. In the past three years, I have never experienced any serious problems.

We have internally two people to maintain AKS and for our customers, we have multiple people. There are a couple of DevOps resources who are trained in Terraform and are Azure DevOps certified who operate the cluster. 

We rely upon monitoring and alert mechanisms. Basically, we do not need to be on the server with a dedicated resource. We only need to look at the alerts, as the solution is self-healing. 

Scalability depends on how the architect designs the cluster. Once a Kubernetes cluster is up and running, the auto-scaling works according to the basic design. If I need a different node pool, then I need to create a design cluster. If this is done correctly, scalability by design or architecture is not an issue. It is up to the individual architects to be disciplined in considering future needs and build in flexibility.

The initial setup of AKS is a breeze. Straight out of the box, with experience, it takes only 30 minutes. Setting up a secure cluster takes only 30 minutes. I use Terraform extensively, so it is pretty easy to set up. I would rate the initial setup a five out of five for ease of setup.

I did the deployment of AKS myself with two other people. One from networking with an infrastructure point of view to handle the set-up of the V-Net by controlling the IP address range. The other person is the one who manages Azure Active Directory.

There is an initial infrastructure cost, however, the more services you deploy, the cost per service comes down drastically because you are leveraging the underlying infrastructure. As you scale your operations, AKS becomes more cost-effective.

The cost of AKS is humongous, it is very expensive. You are charged based on the nodes, the networking, and the storage. Multi-clusters are another consideration, especially if you need to add firewalls.

It is important to keep in mind that the cost is not just the licensing, but also the human resource cost. Every organization should have some idea about what they should be putting into Kubernetes together with the type of people, and types of resources required to monitor, alert, and operate the solution.

Compared to Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service and OpenShift, Microsoft Azure has very specific guidance on how to secure an entire cluster with multiple inputs. This is really phenomenal. This guidance is missing in the other products.

Anyone considering AKS as a solution should be sure they consider the design carefully and give a lot of focus to the initial setup. 

I also recommend that the organization is clear on what its end goal is, otherwise they will incur too many additional costs. 

Lastly, keep in mind that it is difficult for the executive level to understand what Kubernetes is and that it is not the answer to everything.

Overall, I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service a seven out of ten.