Azure Monitor Reviews

We use it to monitor all the services and applications, whether it is running or whether it is standing still. We use it to monitor the server and all of the CPUs so you can audit the bandwidth that has been consumed - all the day to day administrative stuff.

The most valuable feature is that it's stable. It hasn't crossed any thresholds. 

The troubleshooting logs need improvement. There should be some improvement there. I have a hard time finding the right logs at the right times whenever there is an issue occurring. They should simplify the logs. 

I have been using it for around two years. 

We definitely do have plans to increase the usage but it depends on what the management calls. I'm not the authorized person to make calls here but we do have plans to increase the current infrastructure.

We have a separate team that handles creating incidents with Microsoft.

I would rate Azure Monitor an eight out of ten. In order to make it a perfect ten, the solution should be simplified. For a beginner, it's kind of complex. It should be made easier for beginners or newcomers.

I would recommend this product. We get good results from Microsoft Azure, so that's why we stick with Microsoft Azure. 

I definitely recommend this product to all my colleagues or my friends or my friend's companies.

I use Monitor for up-down (up time / down time) monitoring and tracking performance events within Azure. Essentially, I use it for log analytic searches, backend searches, and also to provide insights into Azure Monitor.

I find that the new dynamic alerting is a pretty good feature now. It bought the product up to date. Response times for alerts are much better than they were. Also running event searches within Azure Monitor. They're quite handy features and I find them all valuable.

I'm quite involved in the automation of dynamic alerts so I really can provide some insight into how that can be improved. They did have an alerts feature before and it was quite well automated, but since they've gone to a dynamic model and did a few updates, it broke a few things. Some commands that were used before no longer work. But some things that could be improved are:

• Feedback should really be feeding back to MSFC (Windows Server Failover Cluster). 
• Make it so you can actually create more dynamic alerts on the fly. 
• Add capabilities to export templates dynamically. 
• Integrate better with Terraform — which everybody seems to be using these days. The integration with Terraform is broken on the Terraform side as well so it's not working as well as it should be from either point.

The stability of the product is okay. We've got to do some further testing with alerting. It is something we are at the point of using now with our customers. A client was previously getting flooded with alerts but not when we were able to suppress alerts in the right way. So, I think it's pretty stable compared to how it was. There is still more room for improvement.

I think the scalability is pretty good and you can plug-and-play pretty well. I'm not sure how well the product talks to other third-party tools, but overall the scalability is good. I don't think they are going to scrap the current model but they've got a lot of things that you can embed now with service help metrics. I think it is a pretty good bonus. There is a new upscale function as well, so scalability is pretty good.

The technical support is pretty good. They have been getting better. A lot of the call center operations are offshore these days, but that situation has been getting better as well. I would say there is an improvement in technical support in response time to tickets. They usually get to things within four to eight hours. Even if the technicians say there is going to be a 24-hour response — like a class C ticket — it still goes through.

The product is in the portal, so you don't really need to set it up. When you get your subscription it is all built-in. If you're setting up customized resources and alerting, then you need to set up the action groups and some other things. For example, I put automation on group creation which sets the alerts and additional parameters. It isn't necessary but it is a good option to take advantage of. The only thing that gets in the way during setup is the integration. I think the setup is getting better and easier than it was.

I implemented the product myself with customizations and building it out for our needs.

I have been using this product almost since it was first released. It changed in the last two or three years to be officially launched. I think the initial release of Monitor came out about four years ago and has improved a bit. So on a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Azure Monitor further up there than I would have before. It is eight now. It is really production-ready. I'm not going to give it 10 out of 10 cause nothing's ever that good but I'll give it an 8.5 out of 10.

To get closer to being a ten they would need automation of alerting. What I mean by this is adding a feature where you drag-and-drop what you want and then you can click and it exports the template. That would be ideal. I think there is actually a way to do that template export, but there isn't a dedicated export function. You can do that without a dedicated function when you deploy, but you can't do that with a visual monitor at the moment. 

In any case, I would definitely recommend the product for Azure users because it is seamlessly integrated into the platform.

We have a financial application that needs to be working, and for our organization, it's important to be able to see the status of the overall application, which we have now. That's our primary use case for the solution. 

The solution integrates well with the Microsoft platform.

In comparison to New Relic, which I've used before, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as easy to use. It also took some time to get it working. The implementation needs to be simpler.

Right now, we're planning to increase usage. We're migrating from on-premises to the cloud. Currently, we have 25 users.

We previously used New Relic. Azure Monitor does a better job of integrating with Microsoft, which is one of its main selling points.

The deployment of the solution is somewhat complex because not all the tools are easy to understand. Just like New Relic, you use the SQL language to do the requests that you want to have specific for your APM. That's a little bit different than I'm used to. I'm trying to learn the language right now.

Currently, we are using all deployment models: public cloud, private, hybrid, and on-premises. Since we already have Azure, they deliver the monitoring solution as part of our environment.

Azure is more integrated into the infrastructure than New Relic was. You can use infrastructure components versus the analytics tool, which is a separate component that you can use for multiple things in different ways.

Currently, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. It's working very well. It does exactly what I expect it to do. I think it's a good solution. It's very well supported by Microsoft.

We are doing the Azure cloud transformation by moving to link up the application to the cloud. Monitoring is one part of application's transformation.

I only work with the cloud-based model. 

They can simplify the overall complexity since you have multiple data sources in the cloud for monitoring. It's quite simple, but there are so many portals. It takes time to work with it. If they could simplify the user configuration, that would be good.

The integration capabilities could use some improvements.

The product is stable.

It's a service from Microsoft, so it will scale.

I have not contacted the technical support for Azure Monitor.

It is easy to create a ticket. The overall Microsoft Azure could be faster.

This was only the traditional basic monitoring for Azure.

It depends of the things that you're going to monitor. For example, when configuring a third-party social Internet application on IaaS services and PaaS, I don't have a software development background. Therefore, it's quite difficult to ask the infrastructure guys, "What is something that I need to monitor from the Azure's SQL Server databases and infrastructure."

It's a fast service to deploy. It's more about defining the configuration. You need to find the right attributes to monitor. It takes about two weeks (10 to 20 days) to assign what to monitor. The actual configuration is quite fast. 

I did a private installation for the customer's Intranet.

We are an operation center so we use this solution mainly to monitor all of our clients' environments and to help them with technical issues. So it's mainly promoting clients' environments, technical issues, and being proactive.

I am impressed by the reporting on the average eight ports that we get from this solution.

They need to work on a more hybrid deployment that will allow us to monitor local on-premise deployments and connect to different systems. I would like to see more integration. 

In the next version, I would like to see more mobile applications. The current support is based on email so customers don't have full support. I think the developers need to put some effort into the support team to put skilled people in place and provide phone access.

We've had no major issues, so the program is stable.

I believe the program is scalable.

The initial setup was not that complex but it was definitely not straightforward. You need to have certain design planning in place. We are integrators, so we have an internal team who was responsible for it.

The duration of deployment depends on the size and the number of servers that you need to monitor. Sometimes it takes 20 or 30 days, sometimes takes five days or even less. So it depends on the client size and how much he or she wants to evolve and develop. 

I would say that one person is enough to do the deployment; it really depends on the kind of business.

Azure offers more intelligence than other solutions. Other solutions mainly focus on the network with hardware, but Azure is more open to other platforms.

My advice to others would be to do design planning. I believe there is room for improvement, especially when it comes to mobile applications. That is why my rating is eight out of ten.

Azure Monitor helps with infrastructure monitoring and getting application logs. 

The tool's most valuable feature is the alert system, which can be set according to our metrics. The integration is smooth. 

Azure Monitor is not user-friendly, and the interface is not exciting. Switching between the dashboards is not easy. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a seven out of ten. 

I am experienced with Azure, and hence, the installation was easy. However, an inexperienced person may find it difficult. 

Azure Monitor is cheaper compared to other third-party monitoring tools. 

You need to go through the documentation before deploying the solution. Also, learn Kusto Query Language to create custom metrics and logs by yourself. I rate the product a six out of ten. 

We use Azure Data Factory mainly, and we build our own ETR using Databricks. We are a services company, so depending on the requirement for the customer, we use all of Azure's products. We work with infrastructure deployment and want to monitor the health of our deployments.

The metrics and alerts in Azure Monitor allow us to set thresholds on the metrics and receive alerts, providing a good facility for monitoring.

Azure Monitor has metrics and alerts capabilities. It allows you to set thresholds on the metrics and receive alerts. This is an important feature for monitoring.

Azure Monitor could improve by adding capabilities for data observability and integrating more tightly with their data platform components.

I have been familiar with Azure Monitor for the last three to four years.

The technical support by Microsoft Azure is good, however, there is room for improvement in their overall competence.

Neutral

Previously, we used open-source tools before adopting Azure Monitor.

Using Azure Monitor is less of a hassle for existing Azure customers than procuring another product, even if the cost may be slightly higher. Avoiding additional bureaucracy is also easier when using Azure Monitor as part of the existing Azure suite.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.