Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

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.

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.

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 download the internal website to showcase our organization’s development and products and present it to customers in a web application.

Each component is deployed as a microservice in Kubernetes. The web application is deployed in Azure Kubernetes Service. Everything runs inside the Kubernetes only.

The main features of Azure Kubernetes Service are how it deploys and manages microservices and enables them to communicate. AKS can also group, classify, and log data. AKS makes it easy to deploy, maintain, and communicate between microservices.

The solution could provide more logging mechanisms and a good user interface.

I have been using Azure Kubernetes service for three years.

The product is stable.

AKS has been used for six years to deploy and manage containerized applications in production, development, and testing environments. AKS is a stable and reliable service, and we have not had any issues with it.

Between 100 to 1,000 internal customers are opening the site and logging in to see the feature labeled location, demo, reporting, etc. Scalability depends on what we are scaling. For example, we have two nodes for Development, four in production, and three for backup.

When there were some hiccups, we took up a Microsoft support ticket. They're very good and help us a lot to solve the issues. I have worked with them a couple of times.

The initial setup is very easy. There are seven to eight tabs. If you select all the tabs and go for a deployment, it may take up to ten to fifteen minutes to complete.

Generally, I write my scripts for Deployment. Sometimes, we use partial or batch scripting, using HCLA comments to parameterize the scripts based on the requirements. Otherwise, you can use Terraform scripting to deploy.

I did the deployment by myself. We generally use a third-party team to get their input, but I initially used open-source tools with AKS. I used these tools to write steps that can be taken and everything.

We have taken a three-year contract.

Kubernetes is simple. If somebody wants to divert their applications into multiple pieces broadly and maintain them for a longer duration and accessible support, AKS is a web application that hosts them into containers. AKS also provides good support.

Overall, I rate the solution 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.

Our use case is for any microservice that requires a Kubernetes platform for deployment. But primarily, my reason for using it was to develop a tool for our clients to migrate their deployments from Pivotal Cloud Foundry, which is now out of support. I wrote a tool to automatically convert Pivotal configurations into Kubernetes and then deployed them on Azure Kubernetes Service for testing the mapping and tool output.

So it's more of a migration from Pivotal Cloud Foundry to Kubernetes and deployments, with Azure AKS as the target platform.

For most of our deployments, we utilize Azure DevOps pipelines. It provides a seamless experience with a fantastic console and user interface. You can configure the pipeline steps, including pulling code from the Git repository, triggering execution, building the container image, and pushing it to the Kubernetes clusters. All of this can be done on a single screen, making configuration easy and intuitive for developers.

One area that could be improved is the Azure CLI. It would be beneficial if they could abstract some of the complexities related to deployment scripts and make them a part of Azure CLI. This would help reduce the scripting required in the DevOps pipeline for deployments.

In future releases, it would be great to have more container management functions available directly on Kubernetes. For example, auto-scaling features and the ability to configure the initial number of container replicas and memory allocation from the console itself. This would minimize the need for developers to manually modify the manifest file most of the time. It could provide an additional layer of protection and security, allowing only authorized personnel to make changes to the manifest, while others can modify configurations through the web console for specific services when necessary.

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for a year.

There are no such concerns or issues with stability. Any issues arising from the written code or application design may require troubleshooting.

From a platform perspective, there are no concerns on the infrastructure or platform side where we need to contact anyone.

Azure Kubernetes Service is pretty robust in terms of scalability and auto-scaling fixes.

Even large organizations are putting their workloads on AKS. They have data centers globally distributed, which is a desirable feature for many of our clients operating in multiple geographies with their businesses. The service provider has data centers distributed across Shield, offering extensive coverage. For example, earlier in the UAE and the Middle East, AWS used to be the only option, and they have strict regulations around data privacy and protection that disallow data to move outside the borders. Microsoft has set up data centers in Bahrain and Dubai exclusively for Azure, offering an attractive alternative. Most of our clients from NetRegen, who had the AWS option only, are now moving to Azure for its enhanced capabilities.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

Azure Kubernetes Service is better than Amazon and Google because it is extremely seamless, and its user interface is very intuitive and minimal. There are no additional configurations that you need to do. For example, Amazon and Google are very cryptic with many indirections, making their documentation hard to read. In contrast, Microsoft has done a fantastic job simplifying everything and keeping only the bare minimum. The documentation is also quite good to support the developers and offer a better user-friendly experience for them.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

You would probably need developers and DevOps engineers for the initial setup. It is intuitive and has good documentation. So, you don't need to contact the vendors or any external consultant.

Running workloads on Amazon or Google are more expensive than Azure Kubernetes Service.

I rate the solution’s pricing a nine out of ten, where one is high and ten is low.

Azure Kubernetes Service is my go-to and preferred platform over Amazon and Google.

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

We utilize Git as a hosting platform for our SaaS offering. Our focus lies in the financial services sector, encompassing lending and credit-related functionalities. AKS serves as the foundation for our operations, enabling us to host a broader platform that includes medical services and more. Typically, we construct a Kubernetes-based platform to facilitate access for our CyberArk teams, who deploy a wide range of services. Presently, our production environment comprises financial services, along with upcoming releases such as medical services and HR solutions. Our objective is to migrate our products, along with relevant knowledge, from traditional servers and application services to more advanced PaaS offerings. This serves as our primary use case.

The solution has benefited our company because we can scale to our needs.

The most valuable features of AKS are the full array of capabilities and robust security.

AKS has the potential to enhance pricing by enabling us to explore ways to increase cost transparency. However, it's important to note that this refers to computation costs rather than client costs. Our objective is to optimize efficiency and minimize unnecessary expenses. Therefore, we aim to identify which services within the platform can benefit from improved consumption patterns. This is the focus of our ongoing research, with the goal of maximizing computational power within the cluster. We aim to avoid situations where resources are reserved but not utilized effectively. Additionally, our strong emphasis on security ensures that we adhere to all relevant compliance standards, bolstering our overall trustworthiness.

While AKS itself may not require specific improvements, we are exploring various avenues for enhancing our overall architecture. For instance, we are considering the adoption of OpenShift due to its superior security enforcement capabilities. Although it is possible to address security concerns within AKS, we have found that OpenShift offers more robust solutions in this regard. We are actively researching and evaluating other options, such as Microsoft's offerings, to identify the best fit for our architectural requirements. Our focus lies on driving architectural improvements rather than solely relying on AKS to address these concerns.

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately four years.

Throughout the cluster update process, we experienced a few expected glitches, including networking outages and region-specific disruptions. However, we were able to effectively handle and resolve each of these issues. It is important to acknowledge that such challenges are inherent to the system and are accounted for within our Service Level Agreement (SLA). We have developed strategies to mitigate and manage these glitches, ensuring that they do not significantly impact the overall performance and reliability of our services.

We use the solution on a constant basis.

The solution we offer is highly scalable, adapting to varying needs. Its scalability is designed to align with the limits and preferences you set, ensuring financial safety and control. The solution automatically scales up and down based on workload demands, effectively managing resources. It incorporates robust insights tools that continuously analyze the system's performance and determine optimal scaling actions. In certain cases, manual scaling may be preferred based on your own assessment, and the solution accommodates both automatic and manual scaling modes. The choice of scaling approach depends on the specific Service Level Agreement in place, allowing for flexibility and customization.

I rate the scalability of AKS an eight out of ten.

Overall the support from AKS could be better.

Support is available in various forms to address different types of issues. There is a general support option accessible to everyone, allowing for access based on the criticality of the problem and its impact on your business. While premium support is also provided, there are instances where the evaluation of a technical issue begins with basic questions, even for subscribers. This can lead to frustration as it may require spending additional time repeatedly describing the situation. Consequently, it would be beneficial for the support process to be more agile. When an issue occurs with AKS or within a specific region, it affects the entire application. Unless you have multiple clusters in different regions for high availability, relying on a single cluster is often the norm. In such cases, paying double just to account for potential regional crashes may not be feasible or desirable. Therefore, it would be preferable to include such considerations in the SLA or contractual agreement. This issue is not unique to AKS and can be observed with other cloud providers as well. The general support process involves engaging with people, and despite automation, different levels of experience and knowledge can influence the support experience. Consequently, it may take one to two hours to synchronize and connect with someone who can provide the necessary assistance.

I rate the support from AKS a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience using various similar solutions to AKS, and I have observed that issues and their effects are generally comparable across different cloud providers. The overall quality of service is similar. However, when comparing AKS to on-premise solutions, the managed service aspect is a significant advantage. With AKS, we don't need to handle cluster management, head management, or master nodes. Additionally, we benefit from pre-configured networking and disk setups, providing a fully functional production-ready solution with ease. On the other hand, with on-premise deployments, more effort and expertise are required, making it a costlier option. However, having an on-premise solution allows for greater customization and control, including the ability to choose specific operating systems that align with customers' IT policies or security requirements. This can be cumbersome when using a managed service, as we lack control over these aspects. In certain cases, we have deployed on-premise solutions to address specific needs, particularly in private SaaS setups. However, for the SaaS itself, we primarily rely on the SaaS offering from Azure or other cloud providers. Comparing the costs, on-premise solutions tend to be more expensive due to the additional management requirements. It's important to note that managing on-premise solutions often requires senior resources, and it's not feasible to rely on junior team members. This factor, along with the need to hire and maintain such resources, should be considered. For example, using the cloud may result in a reduced need for DevOps resources by around thirty percent compared to on-premise solutions.

The initial setup process is straightforward, requiring just a few mouse clicks. It is automated through the use of ARC, our automation tool. We utilize a configuration file that is triggered automatically by our CI/CD pipeline. When we need to create a cluster for a specific purpose, we initiate the process, and within a few minutes of the cluster being up and running, the site begins its deployment.

The deployment can be done in approximately five minutes, but it depends don't the resources available.

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

We do the implementation of the solution.

We have received a return on investment, of approximately 80 percent.

The pricing of the solution is dependent on the choice of virtual machines, specifically the amount of memory required. There are various options available, ranging from around twenty-five to even more choices to select from. This flexibility allows you to customize the pricing based on your specific needs. From my perspective, virtual machines in the cloud tend to be slightly more expensive compared to virtual machines offered directly by data centers. However, this cost is offset by the benefits of a managed service. Taking the overall picture into account, the managed service approach is advantageous. The pricing for the platform can vary, typically ranging from three hundred euros per month to two thousand euros per month, depending on the specific requirements and setup you choose.

You have the flexibility to choose different payment options based on your needs. You can opt for a pay-as-you-go model, where you pay for resources on a monthly basis. Alternatively, you have the option to make upfront payments for one year or three years. Choosing the three-year payment option can provide you with up to a forty percent discount. The payment plan you select depends on the projected duration of your usage. If you are confident that you will require the service for a longer period, opting for the discounted upfront payment can be a cost-effective choice. The configurable nature of the payment options allows you to align your budget and experience in utilizing these services effectively.

I have evaluated many solutions.

The usage of the platform is generally straightforward and easy to understand. However, it is advisable to remain vigilant when it comes to pricing, particularly if you have enabled automatic elasticity. While you can set up budget limits and other controls, it is important to be aware that once you start utilizing cloud services, you may increasingly realize the power and benefits they offer, leading to a growing need for additional services. Additionally, it is recommended to exercise caution when using Synapse, a specific component of the platform.

I rate AKS an eight out of ten.

We use AKS for most of our Azure cloud services, including performance testing and other applications we deploy on an Azure Kubernetes cluster. 

AKS is easy to use. We can scale up and down as needed with AKS, which saves us money on our cloud costs. 

I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface.

I have used AKS for around six months.

I rate AKS nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate AKS eight out of 10 for scalability. 

The initial deployment was challenging because I had trouble understanding the documentation. I didn't have this issue with Google Cloud Platform or AWS, but Azure seemed a little difficult. 

I rate Azure Kubernetes Service eight out of 10. I strongly recommend it. 

We need Kubernetes to manage some applications and containers. We use this product as an organizational service.

It makes it easier for us to scale the systems. We don't have to worry about standalone systems failing. It employs high availability. 

The usability is great. You can use it out of the box. When you use Azure with Kubernetes, it provides a managerial layer to make it easier to create environments.

Azure basically provides you with a management layer that does the device handling of our two monitors. It actually makes it much easier to handle containers and manage everything seamlessly.

The stability is okay.

The solution can scale.

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

There are no missing features.

It needs better secrets management. It would be nice if they could handle the management of personal information more efficiently.

Debugging can be a difficult process. 

From day to day perspective, we've been happy with it.

I've used the solution for three years. 

It's largely stable. That said, we had a few issues where we would have to do some debugging.

The stability is okay. However, debugging is not easy. If it does go down, it's hard to examine the logs in the way you could with an on-prem solution. 

The solution is extremely scalable. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

Our users don't even know the solution exists. It's not visible. However, many people use it every day. 25 developers and engineers are exposed to it.

We are increasing usage and plan to increase more. That's our goal. 

Microsoft support is better than IBM's. It's got good support.

We were using Elastica Container Service and AWS.

Ultimately, we had no choice but to use this solution as this is an Azure shop.

The setup is straightforward. 

We are using the latest version. 

If you plan to use this solution, you have to be good at troubleshooting, and you need to understand containerization really well. You need to know how to debug and understand other Azure products as well as Kubernetes. This is not for non-technical users. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.