Azure Stack Reviews

We primarily utilize Azure Stack for hybrid cloud deployments, mainly for scaling up compute resources quickly when needed. This involves spinning up instances on the public cloud, specifically Azure, to manage workloads distributed across on-premises and the public cloud. Additionally, we employ Azure Stack for certain floor-based or edge computing solutions, particularly in locations such as factories, to store, maintain, and support specific operations.

Azure Stack serves a crucial role in our hybrid cloud strategy because we can't place all our data in the public cloud for various reasons. One key use case for Azure Stack is data localization, especially in countries like Australia and Denmark where strict data regulations are in place. For applications and data that cannot leave the country, we rely on Azure Stack to maintain and manage them locally. Meanwhile, for other workloads, we leverage the public cloud, predominantly Azure, to meet our requirements.

One of the features I really appreciate is the Hybrid Cloud Extension UI. It simplifies the management of workloads across on-premises, public cloud, and edge locations through a single interface. This functionality streamlines the management process for me. Another aspect I find valuable is the consistency Azure Stack offers. It provides a uniform experience, from service names to user interface, whether I'm working in the cloud, on-premises, or at the edge. This consistency is crucial in managing various deployment scenarios. Lastly, Azure Stack's ability to function in isolated or remote areas, such as factory and plant locations with limited network connectivity, is highly valuable. This synced operation capability ensures smooth operations even in challenging environments.

One aspect that I consider a drawback is the cost associated with Azure Stack, as its deployment expenses tend to be on the higher side compared to other solutions. Another significant challenge is integration, especially with third-party products. While Azure Stack seamlessly integrates with Microsoft's own tools and platforms, there is room for improvement in its compatibility with third-party solutions. Lastly, although updating and patching Azure Stack is more straightforward than in older Windows versions, there is still room for enhancement in the upgrade and patch management process.

I have been using the solution for more than 18 months.

It is definitely stable and I would rate it nine or eight out of ten.

It's a bit complex to scale and I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The customer service is good. 

Positive

The reason we lean towards Azure Stack over competitors is that it offers strong integration with the public cloud, specifically Azure. Many of our clients use Microsoft 365, and this leads to a significant presence of Azure workloads. Additionally, a substantial portion of our servers run on Windows. These factors make Azure Stack a favorable choice for us. When comparing it to Nutanix, Azure Stack stands out in terms of its integration with the public cloud and, in some cases, cost-effectiveness.

The initial setup is moderate, not extremely simple but not very complex. It is hybrid but depends on the requirements of the client. The percentage of workloads on Azure Stack varies across our customers, ranging from ten percent to sixty percent. We opt for Azure Stack as a hybrid solution when a customer has some workloads on the public cloud. Typically, we set up Azure Stack in an on-premises data center and migrate workloads from existing environments, such as VMware or Hyper-V, to Azure Stack. 

However, if the workloads are primarily for the public cloud, we migrate them directly to the public cloud. The choice between Azure Stack and public cloud migration depends on various factors, including connectivity, compliance, costs, and other specific requirements. In essence, our Azure Stack environments are hybrid, with around thirty to forty percent of workloads residing on-premises and the remaining fifty to sixty percent in the public cloud.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

The pricing falls in the middle. It serves as a mediator between being expensive and being affordable, but it's not exactly cheap either. I would rate it a six out of ten.

I would overall rate it an eight out of ten. 

I use a lot of services in Azure.  I have worked with completely isolated environments, building infrastructure from scratch using Terraform, Chef, Puppet, and other such tools.

The Platform as a Service (Paas) environment is the most valuable feature.

The Web App service is very valuable.

It is helpful from a security point of view because we can create our own isolated, private environments that contain virtual networks, and we can put security rules in place. We can also specify application rules, which is something that is also useful.

There are a lot of services in Azure that are not stable.

Azure Messaging services are in need of improvement.

I would like to see better monitoring capability, as we have in Dynatrace and other APM tools. The functionality is there, but it is not as detailed as it is in other tools.

I have about three years of experience with Azure, on and off.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Azure Stack is to start looking into DevOps early. There are a lot of things that can be done using the portal, and people tend to follow this process because it is easy. It's true that this approach may get things done fast, but it will only get you so far. Working with the DevOps capabilities, such as automation with Terraform, should be done sooner rather than later.

Every cloud has its pros and cons.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The solution meets customers' regulatory requirements. Scalability allows for tasks such as transferring data and accessing local files.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Azure Stack as a partner for five years.

The solution is scalable.

Azure changed premier support to unified support, which involves allocating tickets to multiple engineers and discussing the problem multiple times. The resolution time for issues is not satisfactory.

There is free support available, but it comes with limitations. The unified support package is free whereas the enterprise support can be costly.

Neutral

There are various implementations available. There are no issues with these implementations. Initially, Azure Stack was complex around five or six years ago. Nowadays, setting up Azure Stack is much simpler, and there are no problems with integrations, similar to other Microsoft products. For example, products like Azure Monitor, Microsoft Sentinel, and others may encounter issues, but Microsoft's R&D is effective in developing solutions for them.

ROI varies with each and every customer, but by average it is at the end of second year.

The product is a bit expensive, but you got a reliable solution. You pay upfront for the hardware. You can opt to pay as you go or reserve it, similar to purchasing any software licence.

You need the applications. It's like an extended cloud in your data centre. You can access all the local applications and transfer files between the two clouds seamlessly.

When it comes to security, we're talking about the shared responsibility features between the cloud provider and your on-premises data centre. It's like protecting all parts of the security—from users to servers to files—all aspects of data security. It's akin to having an on-premises data environment, so you must implement roles, DDoS protection, and other security components to secure the environment as well as the public cloud itself. Moving to the cloud doesn't automatically guarantee security; the cloud provider only provides an SLA. You have to implement all the necessary security components.

The product might be a bit complex for non technical people.

I can recommend Azure Stack to others but they should be aware of the technical and security aspects. They should have engineers capable of resolving issues, rather than solely relying on Microsoft support.

The main weakness of Azure Stack lies in its cost. Its value for money is good, offering numerous benefits for the client.

Overall, I rate the solution a out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to host and run an application in the cloud. We have 25,000 customers who use our application. 

The solution pairs well with other MS services and saves us a lot of money. 

Overall support needs improvement because they are not agile across services. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The word scalability is a misnomer. It is generally said that the cloud has unlimited scalability but that is where we face challenges. When we try to scale the system from one plan to another, our DevOps engineer reports that the system is failing. We have reached out to Microsoft but they have been unable to solve our specific issue so scalability is challenging. 

We had issues scaling from one plan to another and reached out to support. Technical support is not agile across services and has been unable to solve our issue.

Support is rated a five out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is easy with no challenges but upgrades are complex. We have experienced challenges when upgrading components from one plan to another plan. Setup does not have these challenges. 

We implemented the solution in-house. We slowly started utilizing services but total deployment did not take much time. 

Ongoing maintenance is not a challenge. 

So far, we have not measured ROI.

The solution saves us money but is more costly than other products such as AWS. We have been paying 10 crores for our Azure services. 

We are thinking of moving from Azure to AWS because there are issues scaling the suite of products, support is not optimum, and the solution is more costly than AWS products. 

Before choosing the solution or AWS, it is important to reach out to relevant engagement or sales teams to get product clarity. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Azure Data Factory is a great solution for orchestration. 

From a security perspective, there are certain things which could be improved. We have that option of enabling the datacenter which sits on the Azure site. The solution is difficult to manage if this particular feature is disabled. 

I've been working with Azure Stack for nine to 10 years for me.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward if you are familiar with some of the architecture. The complexity may increase if you have a large amount of data that needs to be migrated. 

Azure is reasonably priced compared to Google Cloud, AWS, or some other cloud giants.

You need to focus on what your end goal to achieve and build the system in a way that makes it easy to maintain from a software, perspective, and platform perspective.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

So we have offered Azure Stack to one of the biggest telco companies here in the Philippines. We have two sites there, and so far, their business has been growing good. They want to deploy more sites here in the Philippines using Azure Stack.

The most valuable features are related to managing Kubernetes cluster nodes.

When it comes to room for improvement, there should be more focus on the user interface, specifically for the management console.

In the future release, I would like to see better UI. 

I have actually been with HPE for five years now, and we have been a partner of Microsoft Azure's teams even before I joined. So I would say five years.

We always use the latest version. The latest is HCI version 21H2.

It is very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Our clients are enterprise businesses. And I think they've been using it for about four years now.

Sometimes there have been software issues, but customers still need assistance from us, the hardware vendor. So I think the ticketing and issue logging need to be more available.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup a seven, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. The deployment took around two to three months. 

If we compare it in the market to other vendors, I think it would be around four out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high. There is additional fees required for support. 

I have conducted cost analysis and simulations using AWS, Azure Stack, and Google Cloud. So I've performed several cost analyses based on customer requirements. But I haven't had extensive hands-on experience with those public clouds.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten because Azure Stack is very reliable. It's highly available and provides the requirements needed by the customers' applications. It's also very secure.

The solution is cheap and helps consolidate infrastructure to a converged space compatible with medium customers. 

Azure Stack needs to improve integrations. 

I have been working with the solution for three to four months. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Azure Stack's deployment a ten out of ten. My company has one customer for the solution. 

I rate the product's deployment a six out of ten. It took about a month's time to complete. 

I rate the tool's pricing a seven out of ten. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for its virtual machine features.

The visibility of the solution's SDN feature and transmission policy needs improvement.

We have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the solution's scalability as a ten.

Whenever we raise a ticket, it gets addressed immediately by the solution's technical support team.

Positive

The solution doesn't need configuration as it is prebuilt on hyper-converged infrastructure. Its deployment takes two to four months to complete. The process involves installing the hardware and network requirements. 

It is not a cost-friendly solution. I rate it a seven for pricing.

I advise others to appoint premise engineers to manage day to day activity of the solution. I rate it a ten as it is business-friendly and has all the features prebuilt.