Microsoft Azure SQL Database Reviews

We use the public cloud model of this solution. 

With Azure, we can achieve very high workloads (~6K queries/min) and, if necessary, scale databases in real-time with only one minute of downtime for our customers. It enables us to scale up on demand and to scale down when needed. 

The most valuable feature of Azure Database is the read-scaleout one: in Premium and Business tiers, the logic single DB consists of 4 identical DBs, the main one (writable) and three read-only synchronized copies; in our application we can use the three read-only copies for almost all of the read-only query and this allows workload distribution and minimizes the concurrency in write operations.

They have good documentation. It's concentrated information. 

Migrating existing application to SQL database had many problems, developing a new app for Azure Database not. 

Their support is nice but frequently their responses aren't effective. 

The documentation is always updated with the latest features but the documentation for the database features should be better. It doesn't specify when specific features will be released. The documentation needs improvement. They should improve the way they explain the information to the market.

It should have better support for UTF 8 (a feature already present on the on-premises version of SQL Database 2019) a for Hadoop integration.

It is stable. 

It is very scalable. 

The initial setup was incredibly easy. Moving from a standard tier to a business tier is not so easy and the documentation isn't so clear the presence of the read scale out copies.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

• Cloud products reduce the cost of the production of software products
• You do not have to buy the product at the up-front market cost
• You pay for it as you use the product
• You can develop a product on your own premises
• Just give the key to the vendor, so that there are no separate deployment costs.
• You save on travel and meals, as well as housing required for a development team required for deployment and implementation.
• The distance between the client and development team is invisible.
• You may arrange virtual-real trainings/demos based on the affordability of the client’s budget.
• There is no requirement of special hardware, as costs and additional software are bared by the cloud platform. You can spend as you need based on what the client’s needs are and scale hardware and software up to the client’s needs.
• Cost of the platform and the software upgrades are covered under the service contract.

We developed our product with a small team of .NET developers for a client, a law university in Delhi, India.

We received the requirements from conversations of our team with our client, over the phone, and with email.

There was minimal training required for the team to be trained in cloud, as every developer in the team had basic .NET skills.

This product was then intended to be used by law university students for their training in court room sessions as student lawyers debating against each other to deduce lawful judgements of a case under study.

We provided virtual chat rooms for the students and had facilitated a method to share video sessions of their debates in virtual court rooms.

Microsoft has delivered on its promise by providing a free, developer-student (community) edition of Visual Studio.

I have used this for around 6-9 months to develop and implement the product.

There are questions in the developers’ and clients’ minds:

• Since Azure is a pay-by-use product, what is the provision for the future?
• If, for some reason, we lost this provision, what fallback parachute is Microsoft planning for customers?
• What risk planning and hedging should the client do? There is no such possibility, but the concern must be addressed by Microsoft.

Physically owned products are also subject to failure. The hardware on premise also fails and needs to be maintained, so there is expected downtime.

Microsoft provides mirroring of cloud servers. There is a sure provision of backup and restore of the cloud environment.

By centralizing these services and products at a central location (datacenter), we are optimizing on services and goods cost and sharing these costs with other cloud dwellers.

By going towards the cloud, we are going towards a virus and spyware free environment.

We are moving away from special, owned hardware and products, to cloud-based datacenters, which exist in the other resource rich, low cost, areas.

This is Platform as a Service of the SOA revolution.

Along with overseas datacenters, we shall promote near shore or local datacenters to capitalize on the cloud advantage. We will also address issues of risk hedging, which will spur job growth in local areas.

We didn’t have any scalability problems.

We did not explore this option, but the response was good for whatever we did request.

We switched due to the advantages I mentioned earlier.

You don’t have to install the product on the cloud platform. You receive a login with pre-pared software installs. Custom requirements need to be implemented or requested.

Every region of a country has cheaper locations that can provide cost advantages, and data center growth must be equally distributed on earth with electricity and resource rich, low cost, areas to keep the cost of the cloud minimal. This will also avert natural and man-made calamities.

The United States and other countries can take this cloud option to the next level of off-shoring without any immigration and terrorism issues, enabling development in impoverished areas of the world.

This can further cut down the cost of software development, other "down-the-line" products, services and goods, and will empower the poor and neglected of the world.

This will also improve trade between the countries. There are always imbalances amongst populations in any country in skills and monetary status. An equalizer could be achieved by allowing more trade, more freedom, and more pollination.

In India, we had to start development using the 3-month free subscription Azure platform .net and SQL . Now as far as I know, vs 2015 community edition is a free download. One can develop software application in it and deploy it with an Azure subscription which is pay as you use. All nitty-gritty development can be done by a development team. That's why Microsoft has delivered their dream cloud promise with the zero cost alternative of community edition.

We considered local cloud and physical install options. These options were expensive and less effective.

Microsoft Cloud is reliable and dependable.

We use the solution as a customer database for travel desk applications.

The solution suits well for our server requirements. It doesn't require an extensive system to run. So, it is a fast, limited, and affordable database serving our business purpose.

They should include more accessible functions for image tooling. Presently, we are using optional features for it.

I have been using the solution for about two years.

The solution is moderately stable. I rate its stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We have around 200 solution users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team is good.

Positive

Previously, I used Microsoft's on-premises version.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward. I rate the process an eight out of ten. It took one or two days to deploy it. Since it is cloud-based, we followed the standard Azure mechanism.

The solution is moderately expensive. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.

One should be clear about their reporting environment. For instance, Microsoft ecosystem reporting supports only Power BI. Secondly, one should ensure they utilize more customization options than already issued.

I rate the solution as eight. It is a familiar product for users who already work on Microsoft environments. If you need a limited cut-down version, it also has an option for a single database.

We use SQL Azure for the SAP application, an accounting software that facilitates transactions between different departments. The financial trends we run on SAP are supported by SQL, which is the back end of that application.

The reason we moved to the cloud was for the convenience of not having any physical hardware to maintain. As a technical person, this has reduced the amount of maintenance I need to do, allowing me to focus more on backups since the Azure infrastructure takes care of itself. Additionally, this is cost-effective for the organization since we are not spending much time on servicing infrastructure. Furthermore, it is convenient because we only pay for the time we use the solution, and are not billed for the time we are not using it.

Microsoft could improve its documentation and support. Without the necessary knowledge and expertise, it can be difficult to navigate the platform and find a technical person to guide us through. There is not currently enough documentation available to make it easy to use. If I had not been certified in Azure, I would have faced a lot of difficulties.

I would like reports attached to my phone if there's an error that occurs within SQL Azure or if there are updates that need to run, I would like to receive notifications.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. We only had one outage last year and it didn't even last for 30 minutes.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support has always been good, but recently I had two encounters, last year when I spoke to a consultant from Africa these people provided support, but it almost sounded as if they didn't have enough knowledge. They didn't have enough technical knowledge of my problem to call me back after they had consulted. The support didn't feel like it was Microsoft support contacting me.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and only took one day.

When looking at the long-term expenses associated with running software on an on-premises server, the costs are almost equivalent but when we include insurance for devices, onsite fees for servers, and other related costs, we may find that this is a cost-effective solution.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. I don't see anything wrong with SQL Azure. I believe it's actually an advantage because previously we had to install SQL solutions on a physical computer. The good thing is that has been translated onto the cloud and that makes it a very good feature. SQL Azure itself, is a robust application that does a lot and integrates with a lot of applications. The reason I like SQL Azure better is that it's easily accessible and the setup is almost exactly the same as we do on the physical machines, but the good thing is there's no machine to maintain the grid.

We selected SQL Azure because it was recommended to us by the safety provider of our accounting software.

I recommend the solution to others.

We use it as a backend product. We are using the Managed Instance and the SQL Database.

The backup features are the most valuable.

Its compatibility with existing applications can be improved. Its compatibility is currently a little bit imbalanced.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

It is pretty good. It seems very stable.

It has good scalability. We have about a thousand users.

Technical support was very good. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is pretty easy. The deployment took about a day.

It is a good product for any new development or organization.

I would rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten. It is working fine right now, and I am pretty happy with this solution.

The most valuable feature of SQL Azure is the user-friendly VMs.

The solution’s visibility could be improved.

The solution's stability is good, and we haven't faced any issues so far.

I rate SQL Azure a nine out of ten for stability.

SQL Azure is a scalable solution. Around ten users are regularly using SQL Azure in our organization.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution’s deployment takes hardly a day.

Overall, I rate SQL Azure ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is for applications. We get many applications in the environment, and most applications use Microsoft SQL, Azure SQL, and DBs, and a few use Postgres SQL. So primarily, the focus is to connect with the DB team and have a specific expert in the SQL environment.

We find the uptime and multi-region features available. Additionally, the dashboard is valuable.

The solution can be improved by reducing the constraints available on cloud and improving support response times.

We have beee using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. I rate is as nine out of ten.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. They are knowledgeable but sometimes take a while to give solutions. I rate customer service and support as seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. I rate is as eight out of ten.

I rate the solution as eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by reducing the constraints on cloud and improving support response times.

We offer this solution as part of a bundle to our customers for which we offer technical services. We are aiming to have a centralized marketplace.

We have experience with hybrid, on-premises, and public cloud deployments. We have a complex environment and are slowly transitioning to this solution. Our production environment is the only one that we're putting into Microsoft Azure. For security reasons, we still have some systems on-premises.

The DR for this solution is Active/Active.

This solution offers high availability, and business continuity is in place.

This solution would be improved with the inclusion of better self-service tools.

It needs to be easier for my technical teams to perform support tasks.

This solution is scalable. Multiple tiers and multiple layers are there. 

We are still very early in the process and have not yet had many use cases. However, at this stage, Microsoft is working proactively with us. We have premium-level support.

The initial setup of this solution is usually complex, especially for an enterprise customer. This solution is tailored to specific customers, which is why complexity varies.

The typical deployment takes six months.

Our Total Cost of Operations is cheaper using this solution as compared to an on-premises deployment.

The licensing for this solution is based on subscription. We have an enterprise license, so the price of this solution is high.

I recommend this solution, as long as the cloud environment is suitable.

This is a good solution, but from the angle of security, everything can be breached.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.