Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

I work for cloud transformation with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for major UI transformations of products and services.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) operates on a pay-as-you-go model, so my company can get whatever we require from the tool.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

I have experience with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for two years. My role in the company is to manage all the architects and resources. I am an implementer who develops applications and deploys them.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

My clients who use the product are mostly medium-sized businesses.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I rate the initial setup phase of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) as a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in thirty to forty minutes. After the tool's process was streamlined in our company, it could be deployed in only five to ten minutes.

The product is expensive.

The product supports our company's container orchestration needs since we mainly use it for management and deployment purposes while also covering areas like orchestration and auto-scaling.

The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes.

Speaking about the feature of the product that has been most impactful in managing our Kubernetes-based environment, I would say that I am not into the deployment part of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) since I have to focus more on strategy implementation.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is only one of the services that I have used, and it is a big application. The tool has a lot of UI built on Angular, which is then converted as a microservice and clubbed with Java Spring Boot before deploying it on Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

The product offers security and access management features, but there are some areas, like encryption, where some improvements can be made. I rate the product an eight out of ten for security and access management features.

The product's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines is good. I rate the tool's integration with the existing CI/CD pipelines an eight out of ten.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I need to configure the availability of my applications, and the Azure Kubernetes Service makes this easier to manage. Instead of having 20 separate computers with 20 separate apps, I can use one computer with virtualized applications, saving time and effort with the administration.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the diagnostic service.

The solution's logs have room for improvement. I believe that consolidating the logs would help to improve the recall of information from them. With so many logs and such a large amount of data, it would be much easier to obtain relevant information if the logs were merged into a single log.

I would like to have an easier migration from on-prem to the cloud Azure Kubernetes Service. I can complete the task quickly, but I'm not sure many others can accomplish it at the same time or with the same amount of effort, since it may be a bit challenging, to begin with, if we don't have a full understanding of the concepts. Therefore, it would be beneficial if the service provides a resource to make the integration process simpler. 

I believe Azure provides a great service, and I'm working with the solution on a daily basis. However, Azure Kubernetes Service can be improved to make it easier to manage. The user interface can be a bit overwhelming, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the concepts. I suggest having a wizard that simplifies integration and creation of a new Kubernetes in the cloud.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes one and a half days.

We could spend as little as $25 or $30 a month on Kubernetes Services, compared to the typical $100 a month expenditure for a virtual machine.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

When our clients are informed of the steps and processes involved in deploying Azure Kubernetes Service, they are more confident in taking that step to migrate.

Using Azure Kubernetes Service will save both time and money by decreasing administrative burdens and costs associated with cloud or on-premise hosting.

Could you please describe your customers' usual use cases for Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

Could you please tell what features of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) you have found the most valuable?

There might be something that you find indispensable in Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS).

In your experience, how has the integration of Azure Active Directory with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) helped enhance the security of application?

Could you please assess the impact of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) built-in monitoring and logging features on your ability to track applications performance and troubleshoot issues?

How have the monitoring and logging features impacted the ability to track application performance and troubleshoot issues?

Could you please tell what areas of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) you think could be improved or enhanced?

It doesn't necessarily have to be something advanced. Perhaps there are some minor things, such as improving the user interface, making the configuration or customization more flexible. Or maybe there were some limitations that you would prefer to remove?

Would you prefer to improve the flexibility with the network services?

Four or five years now?

Could you please rate how scalable this solution is from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest scalability?

Specifically about the scalability, does it scale well? Does it need improvements?

Could you please share your impression on the pricing, setup cost and licensing of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

The costs could be optimized in some way.

Have you been working with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)?

Has automatic scaling capability helped your organization, or your customers' organization, to manage varying workloads and ensure high availability?

I am calling from PeerSpot. We are the leading review platform. We collect reviews from real users of enterprise technologies. Currently, we are expanding our database of reviews.

At PeerSpot, we collect reviews for different technical solutions, different categories and vendors including Microsoft, VMware, Oracle, SAP, Amazon, Google, and many others.

If you don't already have an account on PeerSpot, PeerSpot will create an account for you and email you login credentials. PeerSpot will publish your review in written or audio format on peerspot.com and make it available to other users. PeerSpot will email you a link to a written review, and you will be able to edit it at any time. Your review may be made available to third parties and third-party websites, and if you choose to remain anonymous, your name will not appear with the review. You are also opted in to receive email notifications relevant to your review, which you can opt out of at any time. The use of your review is subject to PeerSpot's terms of use that may be accessed at peerspot.com.

The solution is used to deploy applications in a very highly scalable model. Any customer can deploy the application. They won't have to worry about the scalability and reliability of the VM. Most things are taken care of by AKS.

Containerization of the applications is the most valuable feature. It needs effort at the code level to decouple the existing codes and put different templates in different clusters. However, once it is done, the tool is highly scalable and reliable.

If any customer uses a traditional code, the code-level changes take a lot of time. Once that is done, there are no challenges. After that, it is pretty straightforward. It would be good if the vendor could provide an out-of-the-box solution that would enable customers to deploy things directly without worrying about code-level changes. Then, the customer does not have to worry about developing the solution again or adding new libraries to the existing code to make the code cloud-ready.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

AKS is a highly scalable model. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Almost 60% of our customers are using the solution. Apart from the SMB customers, all the others are using the product.

I did not face any major challenges. I faced issues once or twice, and it was sorted in a day or two. The support is good.

The time taken for deployment depends on the use cases. The deployment can take 10 to 30 days, depending on the environment and solution we are working with.

The return on investment is not that high. Our customer has to change the codes to move to AKS. Convincing the management about the ROI is pretty tough in such scenarios. However, the tool will produce a good ROI in the long run.

From a licensing perspective, moving from a traditional model to a new one won't make much difference because the same virtual machine is being used in the backend. We are just adding a layer that gives the organization more flexibility and manageability. The solution does not cost much.

The customers have to pay an extra $100 or $150 based on their number of clusters. It won't make much of a difference for any environment. If an organization pays $100 for a normal infrastructure, it will hardly cost 10% extra with added manageability and scalability. It would hardly make a dent in the pocket.

Azure Kubernetes Service is a good solution for any organisation wanting to opt for containerization. AI can be integrated with the application. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

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.

We use AKS as part of our CI/CD pipeline.

We utilize a combination of custom microservice applications and open-source software, including tools like AKS. Additionally, some of the open-source applications we employ are accessed through subscription models. The primary tools we use are web-based applications, and Microsoft services play a significant role in supporting our traditional services.

There are concerns about potential disruptions or outages, given the power infrastructure challenges in our country. This is why we are considering alternative cloud options. There is room for improvement in automation processes, as well.

I have been working with it for five years.

We had a positive experience within the Azure Cloud environment, but the connection between clients and on-premises resources can be challenging. This is a significant concern for us because, at times, our compound fiber experiences outages due to firewall issues. In some instances, even with a side-to-side connection, we've encountered stability issues. It's important to note that this is not solely an Azure issue but rather a broader challenge we face.

It offers good scalability features.

Their support is exceptional, and we've consistently had a positive experience with them. If I were to rate their performance on a scale of one to ten, it would be a solid ten.

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. We didn't have any issues with it.

The deployment takes a few days. We have a dedicated team of engineers, typically numbering between three to five individuals, who are responsible for managing it.

It is a cost-effective solution.

It is very user-friendly and incredibly straightforward. It allows us to establish infrastructure rapidly, making it our preferred choice over other providers. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The requests get processed within seconds. Earlier, it used to take around four to five minutes. 

The product has  built-in functionality that checks whether the service is available or not. In case the service is down, the tool will create a new instance by default. Hence, the web API will be always up irrespective of the server or the situation. 

The product needs to support a UI dashboard. I have to execute every single command to check the status of services which takes time. 

I am using the tool for three years. 

The product is not stable. 

The tool's scalability is high. You just need to mention the maximum and minimum replicas that you need at a certain time. It will increase the load by default and upscale immediately. My company has around 200 users for the product. 

The product's setup is difficult. If everything is written in your code or you are replacing the values or replacing the credential on the run time, then it's not difficult. But if you want to read those values from the keyword, it can be challenging. The product's deployment takes only seconds to complete. We have seven resources for the tool's deployment. However, the configuration part takes time which can be around five to ten minutes since we need to create a new AKS resource, public IP, etc. 

The product's deployment was done in-house. 

The product follows a pay-as-you-go pricing model which is good for small enterprises. You need to pay only for the services that you use. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. The solution has good integration with ACR and .NET. Its documentation also gets updated frequently. 

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.