Microsoft Azure Reviews

We are using this solution for multiple purposes. For example, for a chatbot and for multiple authentications for service technologies we are developing.

The most valuable features of the solution are ease of use and the enhancements are continually being updated.

There could be more documentation and video tutorials to incorporate each and every feature. This way one can easily get the knowledge and implement it.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 40 developers using the solution in my organization.

The technical support is good. 

The installation is straightforward.

There is a license for the solution.

We plan to continue using the solution in the future and I recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

We have a project with a company that needs support for their IoT devices. We're setting up some databases for them. That's all I can say about it because it's confidential. But we're using the HSM and the Key Vault for security purposes. A wider area or a wider group can connect to this public cloud for security and storage. We also have our own application implemented on that cloud.

It's easy to use, and it's scalable. If we want to grow our product more, we can do it. Because of the availability of different geographic zones, we can also have many places and regions.

Security could be better. Once there was an attack, and we couldn't get to the cloud to see the reports for about five hours. If we want to back up the application in storage, we can't have a firewall. For now, it's secure. I think the main problem was the configuration.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three or four months.

Access to the virtual machine on Azure wasn't always available, but the application was always up and running.

The product is super scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The pricing is better than AWS.

I would recommend this cloud computing solution. When configured and planned well, I think it's a very good product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I primarily used the solution for hypothetical cases. I used the solution to look at the 2019 active directory environment, some remote SQL storage, and storage access from on-premises to the cloud.

There's a feature for automated tasks. As an administrator, handling administrative-type tasks, it's quite useful. For example, I was spending lots of money when I would spin things up. I'd spin up a SQL server. I'd spin up different types of things. They cost a lot of money. I would get distracted, walk away, and go to bed. I'd get up in the morning, and I'd see I'd have a bill. Therefore, I spun up an automated task and wrote a PowerShell script, put it in an automated task, and it would run at seven o'clock every night, and delete all my resources. It saved me money.

You can build an environment in minutes. It's very good in terms of being an infrastructure as a service, and I found that really fascinating.

All the devices they have up there that replace existing devices in the real world like load balancers or F5 are helpful. I'm not sure how they relate or how they form compared to F5, or the firewalls compare to the ones that are in data centers, however, they looked all right to me.

The solution is mostly stable.

The product scales extremely well.

It's a bit of a mystery how the storage is going to perform. For example, when you've got a storage device like Hitachi or NetApp, you can run reports on that storage and you can do all this good stuff. I'm not sure if that's the case with Azure. A lot of the stuff is kind of proprietary, at the moment.

The cost is quite high.

You can't control the data as much as you would like to. When it's theirs, it's theirs. With Hitachi, Hitachi has its own policies. You can move data around based on how much it's used into lower-cost discs and whatnot. You might be able to do that with Azure. However, I can't verify that.

The initial setup is complex.

They need to make storage easy and offer more interconnectivity between solutions.

I've used the solution for about a year or so. Maybe a year and a half at most. It hasn't been that long.

In terms of stability, I've seen it go down twice now. They've had two problems with the active directory. That said, I would describe it as stable. They have different sites, regions, and whatnot, where you can move your data around in case you lose a data center or you lose a region. However, if you lose the active directory, that can take everything down.

It's not any more stable than an enterprise environment, to be honest. Maybe a little bit, however, if you lose a network connection to it, that's not stable.

I worked in a bank, a huge 50,000 employee enterprise. I saw their infrastructure go up and down about the same, once or twice a year. That's about the same as Azure, therefore, it's not anything different than an enterprise. You can make an enterprise resilient if you have lots of domain controllers and you do lots of redundant paths. 

The solution is very scalable. It's one of its great selling points. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

I've never been in touch with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

For a layperson or someone who is not trained, it wasn't an easy initial setup. It had some complexities.

I've personally gotten used to the process. The deployment, for example, wouldn't take that long now. While in the beginning, a deployment might take a month, now that I am more comfortable with the solution and more familiar, I can likely do it in a few days. 

That said, it depends on a company's plans and its own unique environment and complexities. It can vary. Most people seem to struggle with all of the connections they had before.

The number of people you need to deploy or maintain the solution really depends on the size of the environment. After implementation, you could probably scale back your employees from 10% to 50% with Azure.

I can handle an implementation myself. I'm getting better and faster at it.

I've found the cost to be a bit high. You also get dinged for extra things along the way.

The charges are also unpredictable. Even if you think something is a relatively static item, they'll charge you for it and it will change your expectation of the cost.

I've looked at other solutions, such as Hitachi and Netapp.

The biggest struggle a person would have these days, as an architect, is to determine what the cost-benefit of going to Azure would be rather than going to a storage device such as a Hitachi or a NetApp. Which has better value? What's going to be better in the next couple of years? You can really get screwed if you're going to be pulling data down from the cloud. If you pull a lot of data from the cloud, it's going to cost you. You don't get charged for putting it up. You get charged for pulling it down.

I basically used the solution to study.

I used a few different deployment models. I made an on-prem environment, Hyper-V environment, on my laptop and I connected it to the cloud.

I'd advise those considering the solution to not put all of their eggs in one basket. By that, I mean, it's a good idea to go hybrid and not full cloud. Going hybrid covers that network loss that you could suffer if you lose the network. If you lost a data center or a region, you could still have your on-prem server running an image of the cloud onsite.

I'd give the solution an eight out of ten. I haven't had a chance to study AWS or Google, however, I like this solution very much.

On-premises

We primarily have the solution working as an infrastructure as a service.

The focus on security is excellent. We really appreciate that about the solution.

The maintenance of the solution is very good.

The migration capabilities are great. 

The implementation is easy.

The solution could be a bit more intuitive and easier to use.

The documentation could be a bit better. It could be more clear and accessible. It would be good to know if the person answering the questions was a Microsoft employee or just another user.

The pricing in our region can be a bit high.

I've been using the solution for as long as three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. There's never any downtime. We don't deal with crashes or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches. It works well.

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so easily.

Currently, we have 20 people that use the solution within our organization. We also have three or four admins.

Basically, the solution offers regional support and I'm okay with that. I don't need to worry about not getting the services I need. I've called and got support right away.  I'm quite satisfied with the level of service that is being provided to us.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's straightforward as the product is basically focusing on a pay as you go model.

For our region, Bangladesh, the pricing of the product is too much.

We're a gold partner with Microsoft in Bangladesh.

We're always using the latest version of the solution as Azure constantly updates itself.

I'd recommend the product to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. Mostly we've been happy with it, however, we do find the pricing  to be a bit high.

SSO access Easy connect to On-Prem infrastructure GA of new features, such as Azure Backup and Mobile services, free websites and easy to manage pay-as-you-go model.

Deprovisioning services is complicated. SLA is not competitive. While some prices have been lowered, some increased after GA. Options from beta moved to different categories.

The pros of using Windows Azure are- 1) Windows Azure Virtual Network which enables virtual private network creation for enterprise usage 2) Support for Python, PHP, JAVA, .NET 3) More focus on application deployment, rather than infrastructure 4) Provides an application interface built on REST, HTTP, and XML 5) Content Delivery Network

Few cons on Azure are- 1) Poor debugging and logging management for applications 2) Increased competition for development resources 3) Pricing 4) load balancing causes interruption in many of the stateful applications

Windows Azure is a cloud computing platform from Microsoft for running windows applications and working with data on the cloud. It is based on the architecture of HyperV and windows fail over clustering to support redundant instances of application with zero downtime. It's built to quickly deploy application with .NET, JAVA, SQL, Python, and other cloud services. It works on the combination of SQL, azure, and AppFabric, along with other cloud services.

I'm working on cloud-based systems and I'm using Microsoft Azure for storage and for other purposes.

The most valuable features I have found to be the auto-scaling feature and the interface.

Microsoft Azure could improve by being more user-friendly and the interface could be better.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for approximately six years.

I have not contacted support.

I have previously used Amazon AWS.

The installation of Microsoft Azure is straightforward.

I did the implementation of the solution.

The cost of the solution could be reduced. However, I am using the free version.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Azure an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud