Microsoft Azure App Service Reviews

The primary use case has been pretty vague so far. Right now, my scope is on DevOps. I'm looking at it from the point of view of having a DevOps platform. We already have a team foundation server and are working from the cloud.

For me, the DDT has been very valuable. 

The code is very good. We are using that. We are currently exploring Azure Codes and Artifacts.

Overall, all of the features are very good.

It's a Microsoft solution, so it's very familiar in look and feel.

It's too early to really say what features are lacking at this point.

I am new to the intervention and I find it difficult to find my way around the user interface. I have my own learning tool. However, it could be simpler for new users.

The pricing could be a bit less.

We haven't been using the solution for too long.

So far, the solution's stability is very good. We have no complaints.

We haven't found any issues with scalability so far. It's been quite good.

We haven't requested any troubleshooting or help so far, as we haven't used the solution for too long just yet.

The deployment varies, but could take up to one or two months. There are a few things we are currently trying. We were looking for a CATD type of model.

We have our own team that is able to maintain the solution.

We've had a long business relationship with Microsoft. We're partners.

We're still in the process of exploring the solution. However, so far, I would recommend it. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We wanted to build a web application, so we started exploring whether we should do it on-premise or on cloud. We already had an Azure subscription and then we decided to do it on Azure. I like the solution because if you want to do something, even if it is a simple proof of concept, you can use a daily subscription. You can do it within minutes and it makes things move a lot faster compared to traditional data center models.

With this solution, it takes less time to deploy something. So in terms of timelines and user satisfaction, the users are happy. 

I like that you can see everything once you log on to the portals. You can see everything including the pricing of the solution. You know how much it's going to cost your client, how much it is going to cost you monthly or daily and you can even control the usage so that you pay even less. So you have better control over things. 

I would like to see faster adoption and maybe they can give you some templates, so that we can deploy something and then modify the template. For instance, having templates for creating a website will make things faster and easier.

The program is stable and we've had no technical issues so far.

The program is very scalable and we plan to scale to 600 or 700 users.

We've tried many other options but the problem is we are using a product from a vendor and ideally, this functionality should be made available in that product. But we're using Azure App Service and then give users a temporary solution because we don't want to change the product that they are using because their mobile devices are very old. It's going to be a waste of money when they will any replace it in a year's time. It is more expensive to upgrade that product than developing something cheap on Azure App Service.

The initial setup is very straightforward. Deployment is fast if you just want to create a roadmap and the database, but that is if you know what you're doing. If the deployment is too complex, you might want to use an expert to help you. I'm not familiar with the technology and I haven't done web development myself. But I just followed some articles and then did everything myself. So it's not difficult at all. You can also go to Azure's web portal and follow their instructions. 

Azure doesn't cost as much as other services. If you want to create something, you can create it all on Azure, simple and quick. If you have to do it on-premise, you have to follow some steps. And you have to pay for providing virtual machines and buy licenses for all the products you are going to use, like Windows or SQL. But on Azure, you can use a trial account so that you can see how it works, or you can use your day subscription, which is a lot cheaper. 

We didn't try many other options because we already had an Azure subscription. So it was a very easy decision to make and we didn't explore other options. Our version is a little bit outdated, so we plan on upgrading soon. The next version has all the functionality we are looking for. Our main concern is speed, and that is one of the features we like about Azure.

My advice to others would be to occupy the use cases from businesses to see if this works for you. It is really easy. I give this solution a nine out of ten. In the future, I would like to have a template for development, though.

Our primary use case of the solution is for ETL. We're slowly moving everything over to Azure, so I think this will be our expected hub for the near future. I'm the chief analytics officer and we are a Microsoft partner.

The Azure data factory is the tool we're using the most. And again, we're using it for moving data around and data management. For now, we're pretty happy with the product although we're probably using it in a slightly more limited way. All the tasks we've done would have some reasonable degree of complexity and we've been able to achieve those tasks, or complete those processes. We're still getting familiar with it. 

There has been some building of pipelines where we've had to test and redesign a little so if there were maybe some easier to setup guides or more template data flows that would be an improvement. It would simplify the center processes. It would probably be impossible to have a template for everyone, but maybe there's some way to kind of simplify the initial stack and point frame for new users like ourselves, to make getting off the ground a little bit easier.

I've been using the solution for almost a year. 

The solution is stable. We don't have very large data volumes and we haven't yet migrated high data processing power onto the cloud. 

We haven't been attempting to push the boundaries in scalability. It's probably something we will gradually get to, maybe over the next six to 12 months where we will be migrating some additional processes and workload onto the cloud that we may start to see if scalability becomes an issue.

We haven't yet needed to contact technical support. 

The initial setup was reasonably straightforward. We've kind of been taking slow steps and migrating requirements as we gradually move certain tasks or certain processes into the cloud. We've done all the deployment ourselves. 

I think at the moment we're spending less than USD $100 a month. Because we're a Microsoft partner, we get a certain amount of credit on our partner account, but I don't think we've spent more than about $100, maybe $200 in a single month.

I would recommend the product. I would suggest giving yourself time to learn and adapt to the product. A lot of people would probably come to it having some historic or some existing software product in place and they're maybe migrating onto it. And so it will likely involve changing or redesigning how some existing process works. It's a good time to kind of learn some of the intricacies or the way Azure operates that might be slightly different to what they do on-premise. Ultimately it seems like it can do anything that you might be doing with a different tool or in a different location. It's just a matter of figuring out the configurations and the process.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The Data Factory is very good, as is the SSIS, which I also use on the cloud.

The cost of the solution needs improvement.

I've been using the solution for three months.

We're still testing the product. We occasionally have some problems and get some errors. Right now, we have a lot of issues with it.

The product is scalable.

The solution is quite expensive. If you need more features, you need to pay for them.

We use the cloud deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. There are other solutions that seem to be okay as well. Windows, for example, has a good protocol. There's also AWS, but it's just on the cloud.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure App Service is the automatic upgrades.

The logging and monitoring could improve in Microsoft Azure App Service.

I have been using Microsoft Azure App Service for approximately three years.

Microsoft Azure App Service is a stable solution.

There should be more scaling options in Microsoft Azure App Service.

The technical support from Microsoft Azure App Service is good.

The initial setup of the Microsoft Azure App Service is complicated.

We have more than one person that handles the maintenance of the Microsoft Azure App Service.

I rate Microsoft Azure App Service a seven out of ten.

Azure App Service is a fully managed Platform as a Service (PaaS) that integrates bunch of services into a single service. One of its valuable service is Azure Web Apps that helps to develop and deploy enterprise-ready web applications. Microsoft Azure will take care of application deployment and management, while the developer only needs to concentrate on app development.

It is not unsual that we run into problems related to the deployment and post-installation. But Azure team is aware of these issues and continuously keeps improving the Azure stack.

The solution is very stable.

Microsoft provides a lot of scalability in all their services. Microsoft provides services and infrastructure, but for full scalability, the maker should take into consideration the scalability of the app home. The full scalability Microsoft provides is a way to scale up and scale up in your environment. But it doesn't take responsibility to make your web application scalable or not. It helps you to scale up, but it doesn't take care of your application's scalability.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good at all levels.

The initial setup is not too simple but not too complex. The interface makes it easy to use if you have known it for a while. For me, it's easy because I've already gotten used to it. But it could be, complex if you haven't.

The initial setup level of difficulty is dependent on what you want exactly. To set up a website on the app service, for example, is very easy for a simple website because all you need is to develop your website, build it with the Visual Studio, and configure. Once you want to deploy to app service, once you finish, it's only one button you click and everything will be deployed. It's very easy.

Deployment depends on how big your website is, so I cannot say exactly how long it will take in every case, but it is quite fast. It depends what are you sending, how many megabytes you're sending to the app service, but the app service is very fast. If you have a small website, just a few megabytes, 2, 3, 4, megabytes, you will see that it is very fast, but if you have a website with a lot of updates that takes probably five minutes, or ten minutes. That's because you need to push data to push the files to app service. The thing that I can tell you about the in-app service is that because the in-app service normally uses clocks, that means you have a development environment, staging and production environment, the customer can push more into the development environment or staging and then swap. And to swap is quite fast as well. That's the only bottleneck that is possible but Microsoft guarantees no downtime.

Most of the time we configure the ICG configuration and we put the effort in at the beginning to set up the pipeline and want to set it up so that it works automatically, so if you want to start a push code or anything will be deployed automatically. That way, fewer people are required down the road.

The benefits and costs of the Azure App Service plan varies between different tiers of web apps. It is free if you choose the Free and Shared plans app service. These plans are good only for development and testing purposes. So, before you start setting up your app service plans with multiple apps, make sure you are aware of how your chosen plan implements this.

Azure App Service is too easy to setup and appropriate for developers with no knowledge in infrastructure.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

App Service's best features are that it can be scaled easily and it includes Kudu.

App Service sometimes becomes very slow to respond, and it can be difficult to find the issue causing this. Including more detailed error logs would be an improvement. 

I've been using App Service for five years.

App Service is stable - I haven't seen any issues in the time I've been using it.

App Service is easy to scale.

Microsoft's technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was easy, and the deployment took around five minutes.

I would recommend App Service to other users and rate it eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to create a website. Azure will provide infrastructure without any servers and can provide service to host the websites of the company.

The reason that we are using the product is for the stability that they have.

It's a platform as a service, so we don't have to manage the infrastructure to hold the websites. We use it more for the confidence that it's going to be up and running and is easier for us to maintain.

The network side needs improvement. It has to be more stable. Sometimes we have issues with the network side when we expand the solution. You need to find stability in order to expand the solution properly. When we do that, or we add another app service through the app service plan, we have issues with the network, and we lose communication between our data center and the app service.

The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side. There should be more options, for example, to update the DNS server, straight to the app service.

I've been using the solution for six months. It's been less than a year, so it hasn't been too long.

The stability isn't as good as we need it to be on the network side. When we try to expand, we run into problems with the network. However, in general, we find the solution fairly stable.

The scalability is affected by the stability of the solution which isn't perfect. You definitely need multiple resources in order to scale effectively.

We have about 500 users on the website at this point. It's new, so people are just getting there.

Technical support is pretty good. Overall, I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

We have their premier support. I've found that the response is getting slower on some cases. They could be faster, however, that's something that's always on the support team. Everyone always wants faster answers.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very straightforward. The best part is how quickly you can deploy the solution. It's just two or three clicks and you are up and running.

Overall, the deployment is good as, apart from this viable network, we have actually a 90.999% of it up and running.

Azure is a pay-as-you-go type of service. It's my understanding that the pricing is okay, however, it's not an issue I deal with directly.

We're a Microsoft partner.

I'd advise other users just to be sure that they have all of the components on the Azure side in order to do the hybrid configuration. From my experience, that will give you better performance if you have everything on there. That, and it will be totally clear and you won't mix anything up with some private stuff.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.