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.

We use the product mostly for development purposes. Some are in the pilot phase for customer usage, however, there's no real production workload active right now on these services. It is mostly for dev test and pilot purposes.

It has made life much easier because I don't have to manage Kubernetes myself. It saves time and efforts on the infrastructure side, letting me hand off service administration jobs to junior admins without the fear of them screwing up the environment.

I don't have to furnish my own infrastructure in order to run containers or Kubernetes. It makes life easier if you want to run containers at scale. The integration with Azure tools is also straightforward, making it easy to configure storage for the containers.

The setup process could be more user-friendly, and additional documentation would be beneficial. Additionally, the overall documentation could be improved to be more concise and available, similar to the documentation provided by AWS.

I've used the solution foor about one and a half years now.

The stability of the product is very good; we have not encountered any major issues.

Scalability seems to be pretty good based on our experience. We haven't done a huge scale-out so far. Whatever scaling we've done has been smooth.

The customer service and support from Microsoft have been a disaster. Sometimes, they are reachable; sometimes, they're not. Some tickets have been open for six weeks. The support personnel are friendly yet are often unable to push the right buttons to actually move things within the Microsoft organization.

Negative

We are actively pursuing multi-cloud engagement. We are still using Azure for certain services, but for several new workloads or services, we will probably be switching to AWS.

The initial setup process was really challenging the first time. It required getting accustomed to different names and configurations compared to regular Docker or Kubernetes.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not cheap but is just about affordable. It is okay in terms of pricing but doesn't stand out as exceptionally reasonable.

The main competitor and preferred solution would be Amazon's ECS as it is very good.

Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) works. That said, it is not my preferred solution for running containers in the cloud. I would strongly prefer to use Amazon for critical workloads due to better documentation and support. I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We began utilizing AKS this year. Our aim is to embrace cloud-native practices, and Kubernetes is an excellent choice for achieving that. Additionally, Nicola seems to be well-suited for our needs. Therefore, we decided to adopt Kubernetes as our platform for software development. This allows us to enable the app team to effortlessly create infrastructure using the infrastructure scope. While we still rely on virtual machines, it is solely for the purpose of visualization, not for hosting the service. Our focus remains on building specialized software.

AKS provides a convenient solution for developers. When working locally, developers can leverage containerization technologies like Docker and Docker Compose. However, when it comes to testing environments, the Infrastructure as Code feature of AKS allows for easy setup of the entire testing environment. The team can collaborate and make necessary adjustments, while developers can switch back to their local environment whenever needed. The staging environment follows a similar pattern, as the same template can be applied, enabling quick hosting of the entire infrastructure. This approach saves a significant amount of time in infrastructure creation. Additionally, it adds another layer for the DevOps team, reducing their burden of dealing with cloud infrastructure details and allowing them to focus on capabilities. This streamlined process can be replicated across multiple projects, making it a valuable aspect of AKS.

The advantage of AKS is somewhat greater than that of Kubernetes, such as those provided by Google Cloud or AWS. However, the unique benefit offered by Microsoft is its robust CI/CD capabilities, along with the Azure feature for building workflows. When you combine the entire ecosystem, AKS becomes an excellent choice, particularly for enterprise applications.

Microsoft is known for its groundbreaking desktop operating system and has developed an efficient and user-friendly application called Orchestrate. It serves as a business workflow management tool, allowing enterprises to streamline their processes effortlessly. Additionally, Microsoft now offers the Logic application, which further simplifies workflow creation for businesses at an enterprise level.

AKS could enhance its functionality by introducing a blueprint feature that streamlines and expedites the process. With a blueprint, users can leverage pre-defined configurations, including some common survey elements, reducing the need for extensive customization and allowing us to focus on our core business activities. Additionally, if the blueprint covers security aspects, it would be greatly beneficial, as it eliminates the need for us to build security expertise from scratch. Currently, we encounter challenges during cloud onboarding, security implementation, and adapting to Kubernetes. Although Microsoft may not consider these as their direct responsibility, providing a blueprint similar to what they offer to developers would be highly advantageous.

I have been using Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately one year.

I have not had a bad experience with AKS. It is stable.

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

The scalability of AKS is good enough for our current business. If people want to have higher scalability, they move to Amazon AWS.

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

We are a very big organization and we rely on our internal support.

The setup of AKS can be complicated.

We have seen a return on investment. 

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

We are facing a significant challenge regarding OEM licensing. The issue arises from the fact that certain licenses required for our own purposes are not provided by Microsoft's licensing. Consequently, we are unsure about the most suitable mobile license provisioning model offered by third-party providers.

The software necessitates licensing, and it becomes a complex issue when we provision multiple virtual machines with that software installed. Managing the licensing model becomes challenging as we face uncertainties regarding payment to the vendor. For instance, if we initially create three virtual machines with high demand but later require a hundred, the payment structure becomes unclear.

I rate the price of AKS a six out of ten.

The price is expensive but a lower price can be found. There are various different types of licenses.

My advice to others is to be aware of the in-depth setup.

I rate AKS an eight out of ten.

In general, building services within this solution can be complex and demanding, particularly in terms of the investment required for DevOps and SecOps. If your team lacks extensive technical expertise, it might be challenging to start directly with Kubernetes. However, if you have individuals with sufficient internet skills, you can leverage the scalability and simplicity offered by Kubernetes. Here, simplicity refers to the consistent experience compared to migrating from on-premise to the cloud. Nonetheless, the investment in pre-existing knowledge, appropriate SKUs, and skilled personnel is crucial. Applying Kubernetes is still not a straightforward task and requires careful consideration.

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.

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.

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. 

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.