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.

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 AKS for cloud-native migrations. 

The most valuable features of AKS are rollback updates, high availability, easy management, speedy execution and deployment. 

The solution should improve its UI and cost. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate AKS' scalability a ten out of ten since it's on the cloud. My company has less than 100 users for AKS. 

The tool's setup is straightforward and takes less than one day to complete. You need one to two resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment can be done in-house. 

You pay for what you use. 

I rate the product an eight 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.