Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

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. 

I found the Helm deployment feature of the solution valuable.

The cost of the solution is extremely high. Both Amazon and Azure cost extremely high. We think it over ten times before giving the solution to clients. No matter how many offerings the solution provides, it becomes a burden that you are not getting back your invested money from customers. This is the reason why these two services do not take off too much.

For example, you will end up paying somewhere around $20-30 per customer for data every month, which is extremely high. If we try to figure it out with some other things, we may come down to a certain sense. It is a couple thousand people, so a thousand times higher. I think that no business owner would want those things.

I have been using this solution for around three years now.

Azure is stable and reliable.

The solution gives you good scalability. It helps you scale it as big as possible. However, the scaling comes with huge costs which can make customers go bankrupt.

I have not used tech support yet since there is so much documentation and other resources available. I find it to be very straightforward. It depends on how well you use it. I think they have done a good part since we do not require much support. We have reached out more to the support team of AWS since they have been very responsive.

The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it.

The deployment was not easy and took a couple of months. It depends on how you scale the solution. The reason for taking time is based on the way you architecture it.

The licensing cost is high and depends on how much you use the solution. The nodes will cost you eight to ten thousand dollars per month for small organizations. Hence, small organizations will end up paying somewhere around $80,000-100,000 for very minimal data usage.

I would give the solution a nine out of ten since it is good. However, I would only recommend AKS to billion-dollar businesses that don’t mind spending. It is more for data storage, blockchain-related services, etc which offers very limited opportunities. So, I wouldn’t recommend it. There are multiple other ways to do it and improvise your profits rather than spending on those services.

AWS and Azure are cloud services. They are also known as enterprise serverless architecture. Previously, we used to have server rooms where we used to deploy on-premises. Since the inception of AWS and Azure, they want you to deploy all the data onto their cloud. They offer microservices to facilitate interaction in the cloud. That is where they make money.

We did the deployment for a production-based project. AWS has its own powerful Kubernetes. However, the cost of Azure was higher than Kubernetes at that time. But, there was something additional called Azure deployments. If you have your own product and want to deploy it into multiple client-related places or on-prem solutions, you need to download it as a blueprint and then upload it onto one more system, which is one great thing about Azure that Amazon does not provide.

Kubernetes services, also known as elastic services, come with more clusters and is also very expensive. Suppose, your product needs to be used by just four organizations and a couple of hundred of their users have minimum use, you will end up paying eight to ten thousand dollars in just a month. This is very, very, very high. Not many clients prefer paying a premium price for just a little data.

Both of the solutions need to be very cost-effective. I have found many clients struggle the moment they hear the cost aspect of the solution. If you have millions of data, then you will need to spend millions of dollars just for the hosting and clusters of the Kubernetes services. This is the reason why many people are not preferring the solution.

The AKS service is used as container orchestration for a product based on microservice architecture and as computing layer abstraction.

The solution helped the organization improve the availability and scalability of the product by making use of self-healing and autoscaling features offered.

The solution is a managed Kubernetes, allowing to offload of a large part of the maintenance tasks to the cloud service provider. This allows the team to focus more on features that have a greater business impact, rather than on maintenance tasks.

The solution provides a good foundation but there is a good amount of work to do to reach a full-fledged production grade platform.

There is an entire ecosystem of tooling around the solution. 

Th solution could be an improved by providing an add-on ready to install for the most common tooling around Kubernetes.

I have been using the solution for almost three years.

The platform is pretty mature.

The solution can easily adapt to the change of demand.

The initial setup has been very simplified and optimized compared to the effort required to deploy a self-hosted solution.

AKS provides a good level of elasticity allowing them to scale horizontally the platform based on demand.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Maintenance is much easier than an on-prem/self-hosted Kubernetes platform. 

Many of the tasks are automated by the cloud provider.

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.

The most valuable features of AKS are scalability, deployability, and automation.

Configuration management and troubleshooting performance issues are difficult to solve and could be made easier. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for approximately one and a half years.

There are some performance issues with the stability. There is some fine-tuning needed.

I rate the stability of AKS a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

Small to medium-sized businesses are best suited for AKS.

I rate the scalability of AKS a nine out of ten.

The support is excellent.

I rate the support AKS an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup can be complex and took a total of four weeks. However, the incremental deployment took a couple of days.

In the first step of implementation, we do an estimation and identify all of our independent modules and packaging needed.

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

The price of AKS is expensive. We pay approximately $10,000 monthly.

My advice for others is to focus more on packaging the individual models and cables before going to where the solution is situated.

I rate AKS a six 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.