4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 26, 2016
MS is easy to work with. Excellent implementation support and knowledgable support team.
If you are already a Microsoft shop - this is an easy transition.
Fast - goverened by our existing agreements.
Initiatlly not as flexible, though they are becoming more open.
Easier integration from VMware
Not much, we will have more lessons learned once we have more instances in production.
Great (free) consulting for setup.
1 of 1 peer(s) found this review helpful.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 25, 2016
Microsoft is constantly evolving the platform which in some cases has been very beneficial to us in that we can leverage new features to bring solutions our business. Conversly, some of the changes that they have rolled out have caused us significant pain - ARM is a good example, with no clear migration path from the previous deployment methodology. Documentation is an area that is very lacking and has been a major cause of concern for us.
Be cautious of change but embrace the ability to scale.
It is agile
Complex and poorly documented
Dedicate resources to properly document the platform. There needs to be a focus on documents that very precisly and consisly explain how a feature is to be used. Even their internal support staff struggles with the documentation
Avoid vendor specific implementations. Microsoft's PaaS model seems to have fallen by the wayside and we are now tied to it which in hindsight was a poor choice. The DevOps mindset has made this more challanging for us as some of the decisions made were by people who don't really understand infrastructure and its' lifecycle
Support calls tend to take significant time to get resolved. We recently had an issue that took over a month to resolve - much of which was due to poor documentation to the point that the support engineers could not understand what needed to be done. In addition, there is limited diagnostic capabilities which makes the process much more difficult than it should be
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 17, 2016
Compared to other products of similar nature, AZUR stood out as it could provide the agility and scalability needed, plus availability metrics were good.
Challenge the vendor for metrics that matter to your business.
Seems like a solid platform to be used with solid vendor backing.
being small fish in the big pond has its own de-merits.
Give more discount and provide more resiliency metrics that can be shared/used with/by the business.
vendor was Open to challenges, provided end to end support, live demonstrations, and actual metrics needs to be sorted out. Easy to deal compared to others.
Lot depends on the local team, we have a great team so it made it easy to deal with them. The service and support team did a very good job.
The testing and PoC resulted in very good outcomes, for the right reasons, the product is not very difficult to integrate. However, you need to have good in-house expertise to deal with end user issues in case they occur.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 16, 2016
The transition was easy to move from an in-house hosted application to the Microsoft Azure. We were able to move very quickly and build a platform that allowed us to scale as needed to accommodate traffic spikes.
Work with an experienced cloud architect to help you build the best solution to meet your needs.
The flexibility and control it provides for us to deploy and manage our website.
Be more proactive and give time to fully integrate the cloud with our internal infrastructure and network design.
We had no additional support at first so we would be put into the same queue as all other users. We have since been able to obtain a premier level of support that allows us to get better response.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 15, 2016
Good and Cloud is maturing fast
Mutlicloud roadmap , open source and no vendor lockin
Ease of learning
on 1 month to try
Use more open source
Yes have a multicloud roadmap both with AWS and Azure
Glad i have Azure premier support
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 15, 2016
Good product offering; took a long time to understand the different approach required for cloud implementation.
Good support from Microsoft; required it a great deal.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Aug 15, 2016
We worked closely with Microsoft internal consulting in the development of our overall architecture. This helped us to avoid some pitfalls that would otherwise have delayed the project for anywhere from weeks to months. The Azure platform has some weaknesses, but provides some capabilities that would be difficult for us to provision elsewhere
Cloud is far more than a technology decision - engage with training/education resources, your customers, your providers, your contract and purchasing staff as early as you possibly can. Customer education is a key component - cloud is just different enough that developers who use their old, familiar coding and deployment approaches are going to miss 90% of the value of Cloud.
Itegration across services - SaaS, PaaS and IaaS services work (almost) seamlessly together. Except for that multi-console thing.
Location. location. location. Running high-speed circuits to Azure POPs is ridiculously expensive. These costs alone remove cost as a benefit for Cloud deployments
Integrate those consoles!!!! The existing requirement to access, provision and manage services across two differen consoles is simply unacceptable given the state of the art in Cloud service provisoning
Start sooner, have more input from the developer/end-user community very early in the process. While we made it a point to engage with our customers, we did so after making some key decisons that we may have approached differently had customers been sitting with us in the room at the time/
Good and getting better
Microsoft worked with us to ensure that our architecture development and initial deployments were simple and seamless
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jul 21, 2016
We have been very pleased with IaaS in Azure. The ease of implementation was unexpected. We setup a virtual network and express route to make the servers easy to access and fast on our network. Microsoft provided support throughout the process which helped in the success.
Script as much as you can with PowerShell to make server builds as automated as possible. Including the shutdown of machines in off hours when possible to cut cost.
Speed of builds and hardware when I need it.
Microsoft changed the interface to Azure which made things confusing for a while.
Clear up the confusing licensing process and provide better ROI information for IaaS.
Setup the virtual network and included all areas of our infrastructure business unit from the start. Getting the processes in place for a large organization can be difficult and take time to complete.
The ability to build both Windows and Linux servers with custom builds (e.g. SharePoint) is very nice. The setup of virtual networks, external facing servers, AD, global storage, and disaster recovery were very easy.
The servers work just as servers in our on datacenter. The ease of build and deployment has been excellent. Support from Microsoft is only a phone call away. We did purchase Tier 3 support which I highly recommend.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 30, 2016
The learning curve for Microsoft Azure was minimal. Adoption of new technologies are always challenging, but in this case was accepted fairly quickly and enabled us to deploy a major application in an expedited manner. We were unable to use a PAAS solution in Azure as one of our 3rd party products were not compatible.
If you need a wide pipe to Azure from your corporate network, make sure you research the costs. The ExpressRoute service is fairly reasonable, however, the service provider's (Verizon, FPL Fibernet, etc) supporting ExpressRoute can be quite expensive.
Ease of deployment.
Difficult to estimate monthly costs.
Divulge all costs associated with a full IAAS solution. The pricing models are not very comprehensive.
Ensure all 3rd Party products are compatible with Azure before moving forward.
Would give it a 5, however, one of our 3rd party products cannot be used with the PAAS solution.
2 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jun 21, 2016
Many rough edges and unexplained details about functionality. Specifically NFS and DNS setup and stability issues along with SSD support limited at various data centers. Service support folks not familiar or aware of some issues which should be standard operations.
Pick a use scenario and walk through it, in detail with the vendor before first implementation. Get training and understanding up front.
Tooling is fairly intuitive to use and understand.
Little or no examples showing/explaining how to solve some of the complex issues. Such as DNS setup, etc.
Need the primary relationship person to own the issue through to resolution, not pass the buck.
We did not do a formal strategic assessment for IaaS. This was accepted mainly due to it's license bundling with other enterprise tooling. Infrastructure group brought it in and then turned it loose because it was available and paid for.
No firsthand experience with this area.