Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

I use the solution for infrastructure services on platforms. It can be used for running virtual instances on Azure.

Integration and automation are the best features of the solution. It is interesting to see what it could deliver by integrating all the services.

The product should make the initial setup easier. The product should provide an online format where I can see, read, study and research it on demand.

I have been using the solution for around five years.

I don't see any stability issues with the multiple servers integrated into Azure.

Scalability is one of the top benefits when you migrate to the cloud. We can go directly from 20 users to 10,000 users.

The initial setup is complex.

Nothing in Azure is as easy as plug-and-play. Most of the time, the product is cloud-based. There are on-premise solutions for very specific cases. As a representative of cybersecurity operations, I have to do research and read the manuals. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

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.

We use it for microservices. 

The tool is budget-friendly.

There are some limitations with the tutor version, particularly in terms of using a lot of free audio. The private level also has restrictions, limiting the number of audio files you can access to just 50. If you want more, you need to contact support.

I have been using the solution for the past year.

The tool is highly-stable. I haven’t faced any problems with it. I rate the stability as a ten out of ten.

The solution is highly-scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. We use it once a week or a month based on the requirements.

The support is helpful.

Neutral

I have used Cisco Cloud.

The initial setup was easy and quick. We set up AKS within ten minutes. We required around three to four people for deployment. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I like the pricing and find it to be in the mid-range, and I would rate it as five out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

AKS is a new technology for deploying a solution on microservice infrastructure. Most organizations are moving to this kind of solution. Its use case is for deployment, full-layer automation, and modernization technology. We are partners with Azure and have an enterprise agreement with them. 

A valuable aspect of this solution is the management feature monitored by the cloud service provider. 

Microsoft has an application firewall but it doesn't have all the good features and there is room for enhancement. The Microsoft in-grade controller has many issues that need to be solved. It's very important for us because we use Microsoft for 90% of our work and this is currently not a complete product. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The stability is good. 

The solution is flexible in terms of scalability. 

Customer service is very good with a prompt response time. They have a dedicated team to assist with support.

The initial setup is straightforward. Even if you go through the portal deployment, or the ARM template, it's very easy. Our deployment was large and scripting was done in the data form. I demonstrated it for the team on the non-production site and the application team carried out the same deployment on the production site with the help of automation.

The infrastructure part took three days because it was a total private cluster. The application deployment took longer, probably around six weeks, due to file and database-related issues. We have an in-house team with four dedicated people that provide maintenance. We also have operational staff that manages the pass services side and troubleshooting of AKS.

I think the ROI is very good. There are a lot of savings on the OS aspect. The container doesn't require the OS, it only needs some binary to run an application and that saves a lot of money. From a company perspective, it's very convenient.  

Licensing costs are reasonable, I believe somewhere around 30% cheaper than AWS.

Until they come up with a good ingress controller, I rate this product eight out of 10. 

We use the solution to deploy and manage containerized applications.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate well with Azure Active Directory, Azure DevOps, and other Azure products. Also, it is easy to use and configure.

The solution's cost could be cheaper. Also, it is challenging to integrate the solution with different cloud services apart from Azure. They should improve these particular areas.

I have been the solution for a few months.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward. They provide proper documentation with steps required for deployment. It takes a few hours to complete.

Our in-house team executes deployment for basic applications. We need help from experts for complex implementations of the solution.

The solution's ROI depends on the use cases.

It is an expensive solution.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as an eight.

AKS is an orchestrator for containers you can manage within the Azure environment. It is the equivalent of AWS' EKS, and Google Cloud's equivalent is Kubernetes native service. AKS' main feature is that it helps you fetch, scale, and manage containers living within any sort of eco-space within Azure or other platforms to run them on demand. It provisions and scales containers on demand based on your configuration.

AKS as a service is very good when you need to leverage applications or functions with much variability in their usage because you're trying to be as efficient as you can with resources. AKS helps you distribute jobs along multiple nodes within clusters so you can handle larger loads without needing to provision additional infrastructure or set different autoscaling policies. AKS will provision and source all those containers on its own. The solution is very good when you need to scale constantly and distribute much more of the ingestion you're taking, whether through data jobs or serving up a certain application. AKS helps you scale horizontally, so you don't have to overload many requests into a larger machine, which eventually becomes costly.

One difference from Google Cloud is that AKS wants you to manage it from within the platform rather than more integratively or programmatically. But it just loses out because you have less access to it programmatically, with less technical or customizable access.

I've had very bad experiences with Microsoft's support. I rate their support somewhere around a five or a six out of ten. They do fine in assigning people to work on your cases, but their lead times for service are very slow. Even when you have critical incidents, you might be left hanging. That usually prompts you to resort to either Internet knowledge or just source yourself around the network of other Azure companies.

Neutral

We are consultants for multiple partners, so we usually adjust to whichever cloud provider they work with. In this case, we leverage Azure because the client already has an Azure infrastructure. Moving jobs for things like computing functions directly into Kubernetes is a decision that's mostly driven by how much we can manage scaling and how much we manage distributed computing. If we need a lot of flexibility on how much load our application will withstand, it's a solid move. It's so much easier than managing compute clusters, images, or provisioning infrastructure on your own. You can even make it work with other tools like TerraForm or CloudFormation. So you can set up the entire Kubernetes infrastructure without providing the resources until you get enough load. That's why Kubernetes has a strong use case overall for most modern applications and distributed processing.

Every container and elastic service on each of the clouds is very similar. Still, Azure offers an increased layer of security based on many permissions that can be handled through Active Directory. Security-wise, Azure is the better cloud and solves many of the inherent security issues that Kubernetes had originally. From there, I feel permission management is much better. The UI is simpler to understand.

I rate Azure Kubernetes Service a seven out of ten. It could be better, but it does its job very well.

We use AKS for cloud-native migrations. 

The most valuable features of AKS are rollback updates, high availability, easy management, speedy execution and deployment. 

The solution should improve its UI and cost. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate AKS' scalability a ten out of ten since it's on the cloud. My company has less than 100 users for AKS. 

The tool's setup is straightforward and takes less than one day to complete. You need one to two resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment can be done in-house. 

You pay for what you use. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the ease of integrating with multiple platforms and environments.

The solution could provide even better integration functions.

I have been using the solution for a year.

The solution's technical support is excellent.

Positive

The solution's license is less expensive than OpenShift. I rate its pricing as a ten.

I rate the solution as a ten.