Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

We use this solution to create multiple clusters and multiple services then scale them, as well as to build network security services around our containers.

We like how easy it is to create the resources in this solution, thanks to how easy the UI is to use.

Command replication is also very easy in this solution.

We would like to see the addition of a service report from the server for this solution, so that we can monitor the health of server operations. 

The monitoring functions should be more better in this solution as a whole, as currently the logging is difficult to understand, which makes it difficult to find issues in production.

We have been working with this solution for nearly three years.

The stability of this solution is very good.

This is a very easily scalable solution in our experience.

The technical support for this solution is good, and we rely on them a lot.

Neutral

The initial setup of this solution is a bit complex.

We would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for deploying the Docker images, which we are working on.

I have enjoyed working with all the features.

I would like to see the stability get more synchronized.

I have been working with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for the past eight or nine months.

Sometimes the cluster is just hung up for some time. Maybe the services are just in a syncing state. They are not regularly syncing it via Argo CD. These are some of the issues we have faced. We have not faced this every day, but from time to time maybe twice a month.

There is good scalability in the current environment. We have currently around one thousand using the solution.

The initial setup is complex for me.

We are using Microsoft tools and that is why we went ahead with the Microsoft company culture.

I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) an eight out of ten.

We use the platform to host various solutions.

The product’s most valuable features are ease of use and automation. Along with that, it has efficient scalability and portability. We can port container images across additional platforms.

The product’s cost could be reduced.

We have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for three to four years.

It is a stable platform. We rarely encounter any downtime. However, from an infrastructure perspective, its stability depends on the application's self-healing capabilities.

We are an enterprise company using the product. We have thousands of Azure Kubernetes Service users.

The technical support services are good. We may only sometimes get the right answer. We can escalate the case depending on the severity.

Positive

We also use AWS EKS.

The product is easy to deploy. We have made the process automated using DevOps. The number of engineers required to execute the implementation depends on the use cases of particular projects the DevOps team is working on. The product supports zero downtime maintenance, including upgrades and patching.

The product is expensive in terms of scalability. 

I rate Azure Kubernetes Service an eight out of ten. It is expensive to scale the number of nodes.

AKS is an orchestrator for containers you can manage within the Azure environment. It is the equivalent of AWS' EKS, and Google Cloud's equivalent is Kubernetes native service. AKS' main feature is that it helps you fetch, scale, and manage containers living within any sort of eco-space within Azure or other platforms to run them on demand. It provisions and scales containers on demand based on your configuration.

AKS as a service is very good when you need to leverage applications or functions with much variability in their usage because you're trying to be as efficient as you can with resources. AKS helps you distribute jobs along multiple nodes within clusters so you can handle larger loads without needing to provision additional infrastructure or set different autoscaling policies. AKS will provision and source all those containers on its own. The solution is very good when you need to scale constantly and distribute much more of the ingestion you're taking, whether through data jobs or serving up a certain application. AKS helps you scale horizontally, so you don't have to overload many requests into a larger machine, which eventually becomes costly.

One difference from Google Cloud is that AKS wants you to manage it from within the platform rather than more integratively or programmatically. But it just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access.

I've had very bad experiences with Microsoft's support. I rate their support somewhere around a five or a six out of ten. They do fine in assigning people to work on your cases, but their lead times for service are very slow. Even when you have critical incidents, you might be left hanging. That usually prompts you to resort to either Internet knowledge or just source yourself around the network of other Azure companies.

Neutral

We are consultants for multiple partners, so we usually adjust to whichever cloud provider they work with. In this case, we leverage Azure because the client already has an Azure infrastructure. Moving jobs for things like computing functions directly into Kubernetes is a decision that's mostly driven by how much we can manage scaling and how much we manage distributed computing. If we need a lot of flexibility on how much load our application will withstand, it's a solid move. It's so much easier than managing compute clusters, images, or provisioning infrastructure on your own. You can even make it work with other tools like TerraForm or CloudFormation. So you can set up the entire Kubernetes infrastructure without providing the resources until you get enough load. That's why Kubernetes has a strong use case overall for most modern applications and distributed processing.

Every container and elastic service on each of the clouds is very similar. Still, Azure offers an increased layer of security based on many permissions that can be handled through Active Directory. Security-wise, Azure is the better cloud and solves many of the inherent security issues that Kubernetes had originally. From there, I feel permission management is much better. The UI is simpler to understand.

I rate Azure Kubernetes Service a seven out of ten. It could be better, but it does its job very well.

We use this solution for microservices and migration purposes.

This solution allows us to use Azure Arc as an integrated tool for development.

We find the container orchestration tool that this solution provides to be very valuable.

This is a fairly expensive solution, which can make it prohibitive for smaller organizations.

We have been working with this solution for one year.

We have found this solution to be very stable during our time using it.

This product is easily scalable.

The initial set up of this solution was very straightforward, and the deployment only took a few minutes to complete.

The solution was implemented by our in-house team.

There are multiple options for how to pay for this product, including a pay as you go option, and there is also one year or three year reserved pricing available.

We would advise companies to research all available options for the functionality they require, as this is a fairly expensive solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

All our microservices are deployed with Azure Kubernetes Service.

RBAC is useful for us to decentralize all access policies. We have a lot of features on the cloud. Azure is more user-friendly compared to AWS and GCP. 

The technical support could be faster and they should improve it.

We have been using this solution for four years and it is a cloud solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. All our end users use this solution and we have plans to increase the usage. We need at leasr two members to maintain and they have intermediate level knowledge and are engineers.

The technical support is good and I rate them a six out of ten.

Neutral

We did not use other container security products before AKS.

The setup was straightforward and it took one hour to deploy. We did not need any help with deployment.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution because other cloud solutions are delayed compared to this.