Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

The AKS service is used as container orchestration for a product based on microservice architecture and as computing layer abstraction.

The solution helped the organization improve the availability and scalability of the product by making use of self-healing and autoscaling features offered.

The solution is a managed Kubernetes, allowing to offload of a large part of the maintenance tasks to the cloud service provider. This allows the team to focus more on features that have a greater business impact, rather than on maintenance tasks.

The solution provides a good foundation but there is a good amount of work to do to reach a full-fledged production grade platform.

There is an entire ecosystem of tooling around the solution. 

Th solution could be an improved by providing an add-on ready to install for the most common tooling around Kubernetes.

I have been using the solution for almost three years.

The platform is pretty mature.

The solution can easily adapt to the change of demand.

The initial setup has been very simplified and optimized compared to the effort required to deploy a self-hosted solution.

AKS provides a good level of elasticity allowing them to scale horizontally the platform based on demand.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance is much easier than an on-prem/self-hosted Kubernetes platform. 

Many of the tasks are automated by the cloud provider.

We used the solution to integrate banking pipelines for our customers. Also, we integrated Kibana into AKS, and from there, we deployed their parts. The solution's features, like machine learning models and analytical tools, have also helped us.

The solution's valuable features include in-built volume controllers, integration, container orchestration, monitoring, PSI drivers, Github, Gitlab, CI/CD, etc.

There are a lot of features that should be included with AKS. Also, the solution is still growing; thus, many things must be improved. We are still testing the solution, but they should provide better monitoring services. Along with it, they should include in-built DR features.

We have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

We contacted the solution's customer service during the time of deployment. We also never needed the tech team's support, as the deployment is straightforward. The event architecture was required on our end; Microsoft doesn't help there. They provide basic help to establish the SaaS components.

I used Azure Virtual Desktop and Azure Migrate as well. Mostly, customers move their applications to AKS from the premise as they want active manageability of services. The other reason is credit plans. Customers prefer switching to services that offer them credit cards. Also, the pricing matters a lot. Even though the services are performing well, people opt for vendors offering a particular cloud that is low on cost.

The initial setup for testing purposes was easy. We just had to set some commands with a click, and it took around ten minutes to complete. During the final deployment, we required a code. It is a day long process.

The solution's pricing and licensing are structured on the basis of the use cases. Again, it depends on how many parts of a particular feature you require. There is a pricing calculator to get an aggregate cost based on the use cases, operating systems, storage capacity, etc. For Windows, the pricing depends on which side of the node you are using, i.e., Dual-core 4 GB RAM or Dual-core 8 GB RAM. It is possible to receive discounts on pricing with reserve incentives. In this case, it relies on how many VMs you run in the back end.

I advise others to initiate with basic services of the solution and then explore further. It is easy to maintain the solution. We can view and monitor all the processes through its monitoring feature. I rate the solution as a nine.

I found the Helm deployment feature of the solution valuable.

The cost of the solution is extremely high. Both Amazon and Azure cost extremely high. We think it over ten times before giving the solution to clients. No matter how many offerings the solution provides, it becomes a burden that you are not getting back your invested money from customers. This is the reason why these two services do not take off too much.

For example, you will end up paying somewhere around $20-30 per customer for data every month, which is extremely high. If we try to figure it out with some other things, we may come down to a certain sense. It is a couple thousand people, so a thousand times higher. I think that no business owner would want those things.

I have been using this solution for around three years now.

Azure is stable and reliable.

The solution gives you good scalability. It helps you scale it as big as possible. However, the scaling comes with huge costs which can make customers go bankrupt.

I have not used tech support yet since there is so much documentation and other resources available. I find it to be very straightforward. It depends on how well you use it. I think they have done a good part since we do not require much support. We have reached out more to the support team of AWS since they have been very responsive.

The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it.

The deployment was not easy and took a couple of months. It depends on how you scale the solution. The reason for taking time is based on the way you architecture it.

The licensing cost is high and depends on how much you use the solution. The nodes will cost you eight to ten thousand dollars per month for small organizations. Hence, small organizations will end up paying somewhere around $80,000-100,000 for very minimal data usage.

I would give the solution a nine out of ten since it is good. However, I would only recommend AKS to billion-dollar businesses that don’t mind spending. It is more for data storage, blockchain-related services, etc which offers very limited opportunities. So, I wouldn’t recommend it. There are multiple other ways to do it and improvise your profits rather than spending on those services.

AWS and Azure are cloud services. They are also known as enterprise serverless architecture. Previously, we used to have server rooms where we used to deploy on-premises. Since the inception of AWS and Azure, they want you to deploy all the data onto their cloud. They offer microservices to facilitate interaction in the cloud. That is where they make money.

We did the deployment for a production-based project. AWS has its own powerful Kubernetes. However, the cost of Azure was higher than Kubernetes at that time. But, there was something additional called Azure deployments. If you have your own product and want to deploy it into multiple client-related places or on-prem solutions, you need to download it as a blueprint and then upload it onto one more system, which is one great thing about Azure that Amazon does not provide.

Kubernetes services, also known as elastic services, come with more clusters and is also very expensive. Suppose, your product needs to be used by just four organizations and a couple of hundred of their users have minimum use, you will end up paying eight to ten thousand dollars in just a month. This is very, very, very high. Not many clients prefer paying a premium price for just a little data.

Both of the solutions need to be very cost-effective. I have found many clients struggle the moment they hear the cost aspect of the solution. If you have millions of data, then you will need to spend millions of dollars just for the hosting and clusters of the Kubernetes services. This is the reason why many people are not preferring the solution.

Our primary use case for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is containerizing and deploying microservices applications for high scalability within our environment.

The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages.

In terms of cost perspective, they could make the product more affordable.

We have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for the past year.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable platform.

The technical support team is knowledgeable.

It is easy to create a Kubernetes cluster. It is developed and managed automatically. The pipeline setup takes two to minutes to complete. However, setting up configurations and other components might take a week.

Azure Kubernetes Service offers a pay-as-you-go licensing model.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) streamlines container deployment and management through our Jenkins pipelines. The continuous integration and deployment process involves fetching the code from Git, building it, containerizing it with Docker, and then deploying it.

The scalability features have the most positive impact on our operations. As we experience a substantial increase in the number of users and the traffic to our applications grows yearly, it efficiently handles the heavy workload and concurrent transactions.

Its managed services streamline scalability without the need for extensive capacity planning compared to a self-managed Kubernetes environment. This approach enhances operational efficiency and aligns with similar offerings in other cloud platforms, making managed services a preferred choice for many organizations.

It is a highly reliable and secure product. I rate it an eight out of ten.

Our customers use the solution to develop their business applications.

The solution's dashboard integration with Kubernetes helps us manage workloads easily.

They should work on improving the solution's integration with API. They should add an option for installing open-source tools such as Kube-State-Metrics to leverage the community.

We have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is more stable than EKS. Although, we face some issues while upgrading it. I rate its stability as an eight.

Our customers have around 50-60 developers using the solution in their organizations. I rate its scalability as an eight.

The solution's customer service team resolves the technical issues accurately. But it takes a long time to reply to queries.

The solution is simple to install compared to AWS, which needs many prerequisites to follow.

The solution is expensive compared to other vendors. I rate its pricing as a five.

I have evaluated IBM Cloud, GKE, and AWS. They all are similar to AKS and have a few advantages over it. But AKS is better than them in terms of implementation, scalability, accessibility, and overall services.

The solution is excellent. But sometimes, it couldn't provide specific metrics. In addition, integrating it with Azure's metric app also fails to generate the expected results.

I rate the solution as a seven.

The most valuable features of AKS are scalability, deployability, and automation.

Configuration management and troubleshooting performance issues are difficult to solve and could be made easier. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately one and a half years.

There are some performance issues with the stability. There is some fine-tuning needed.

I rate the stability of AKS a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

Small to medium-sized businesses are best suited for AKS.

I rate the scalability of AKS a nine out of ten.

The support is excellent.

I rate the support AKS an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup can be complex and took a total of four weeks. However, the incremental deployment took a couple of days.

In the first step of implementation, we do an estimation and identify all of our independent modules and packaging needed.

I rate the initial setup of AKS a three out of ten.

The price of AKS is expensive. We pay approximately $10,000 monthly.

My advice for others is to focus more on packaging the individual models and cables before going to where the solution is situated.

I rate AKS a six out of ten.

I am using AKS on a Cosmos DB database. AKS is similar to AWS in stability and scalability, but when used with C#, AKS is easier to deploy and better to use because I use .NET applications.

The documentation makes it easier to deploy AKS, so it is the most valuable feature.

The onboarding process could be improved. For example, when you open Azure's main port, it is not very easy to access the servers because you need to put your mail and password, and sometimes you need to configure the authenticator. Depending on the case, this could be a problem.

I have been using AKS for two years, and I am using the latest version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The customer support has been good.

The initial setup was very easy.

I have not seen a return on investment since I have only used the solution in my company for two months.

The solution is not very expensive. It is expensive when used on the Cosmos DB database.

The solution has good documentation and is easy to use and deploy. AKS is a good place to start your business. I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We have two primary use cases of this solution. One, we deploy microservices for our customers using the Kubernetes cluster. For example, we have deployed Kafka on Kubernetes as well as Azure functions, which uses the same Kubernetes cluster. 

The other use case is for our internal usage. We only have microservices and Azure Functions, we don't have elastic or data. We do have a tight integration between Azure services and Kubernetes. The concept is called KEDA, or Kubernetes event-driven autoscaling. This means that if there are no services messaging you, Kubernetes usage will be zero. However, if there is a burst of traffic for my services, Kubernetes will create accordingly. 

The most valuable feature of AKS is that when I am sitting at the cluster, I can ensure compliance. Compliance is easy right out-of-the-box with integration to Azure Security, Azure Active Directory, and Azure Policies. The entire cluster is secure by design and not added as an afterthought. 

The other feature I like about AKS is that because of ransomware attacks, Microsoft has released specific guidance on threat matters. AKS is based on framework. This framework uses the proper guidance architect to tell you how the cluster should be designed. 

Another valuable feature is that AKS tells you exactly what you should do with each threat. It will guide you to improve the cluster, deploy something on the cluster, operate the cluster, and when you are trying to heal the cluster. It is very actionable.

Unfortunately, when a microservice fails, Azure can take up to 60 seconds to broadcast an alert to the monitoring agents. For a lot of the microservices, this is too late, particularly for serious failures.

Microsoft would benefit by offering enhanced learning and certification. Kubernetes is now mainstream and becoming more and more integral. Creating an Azure Kubernetes certification would ensure there are specialists in the market that could adapt best practices in a more structured fashion. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for three years.

The solution is stable. In the past three years, I have never experienced any serious problems.

We have internally two people to maintain AKS and for our customers, we have multiple people. There are a couple of DevOps resources who are trained in Terraform and are Azure DevOps certified who operate the cluster. 

We rely upon monitoring and alert mechanisms. Basically, we do not need to be on the server with a dedicated resource. We only need to look at the alerts, as the solution is self-healing. 

Scalability depends on how the architect designs the cluster. Once a Kubernetes cluster is up and running, the auto-scaling works according to the basic design. If I need a different node pool, then I need to create a design cluster. If this is done correctly, scalability by design or architecture is not an issue. It is up to the individual architects to be disciplined in considering future needs and build in flexibility.

The initial setup of AKS is a breeze. Straight out of the box, with experience, it takes only 30 minutes. Setting up a secure cluster takes only 30 minutes. I use Terraform extensively, so it is pretty easy to set up. I would rate the initial setup a five out of five for ease of setup.

I did the deployment of AKS myself with two other people. One from networking with an infrastructure point of view to handle the set-up of the V-Net by controlling the IP address range. The other person is the one who manages Azure Active Directory.

There is an initial infrastructure cost, however, the more services you deploy, the cost per service comes down drastically because you are leveraging the underlying infrastructure. As you scale your operations, AKS becomes more cost-effective.

The cost of AKS is humongous, it is very expensive. You are charged based on the nodes, the networking, and the storage. Multi-clusters are another consideration, especially if you need to add firewalls.

It is important to keep in mind that the cost is not just the licensing, but also the human resource cost. Every organization should have some idea about what they should be putting into Kubernetes together with the type of people, and types of resources required to monitor, alert, and operate the solution.

Compared to Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service and OpenShift, Microsoft Azure has very specific guidance on how to secure an entire cluster with multiple inputs. This is really phenomenal. This guidance is missing in the other products.

Anyone considering AKS as a solution should be sure they consider the design carefully and give a lot of focus to the initial setup. 

I also recommend that the organization is clear on what its end goal is, otherwise they will incur too many additional costs. 

Lastly, keep in mind that it is difficult for the executive level to understand what Kubernetes is and that it is not the answer to everything.

Overall, I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service a seven out of ten.