Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

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.

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 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.

We have two primary use cases of this solution. One, we deploy microservices for our customers using the Kubernetes cluster. For example, we have deployed Kafka on Kubernetes as well as Azure functions, which uses the same Kubernetes cluster. 

The other use case is for our internal usage. We only have microservices and Azure Functions, we don't have elastic or data. We do have a tight integration between Azure services and Kubernetes. The concept is called KEDA, or Kubernetes event-driven autoscaling. This means that if there are no services messaging you, Kubernetes usage will be zero. However, if there is a burst of traffic for my services, Kubernetes will create accordingly. 

The most valuable feature of AKS is that when I am sitting at the cluster, I can ensure compliance. Compliance is easy right out-of-the-box with integration to Azure Security, Azure Active Directory, and Azure Policies. The entire cluster is secure by design and not added as an afterthought. 

The other feature I like about AKS is that because of ransomware attacks, Microsoft has released specific guidance on threat matters. AKS is based on framework. This framework uses the proper guidance architect to tell you how the cluster should be designed. 

Another valuable feature is that AKS tells you exactly what you should do with each threat. It will guide you to improve the cluster, deploy something on the cluster, operate the cluster, and when you are trying to heal the cluster. It is very actionable.

Unfortunately, when a microservice fails, Azure can take up to 60 seconds to broadcast an alert to the monitoring agents. For a lot of the microservices, this is too late, particularly for serious failures.

Microsoft would benefit by offering enhanced learning and certification. Kubernetes is now mainstream and becoming more and more integral. Creating an Azure Kubernetes certification would ensure there are specialists in the market that could adapt best practices in a more structured fashion. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service for three years.

The solution is stable. In the past three years, I have never experienced any serious problems.

We have internally two people to maintain AKS and for our customers, we have multiple people. There are a couple of DevOps resources who are trained in Terraform and are Azure DevOps certified who operate the cluster. 

We rely upon monitoring and alert mechanisms. Basically, we do not need to be on the server with a dedicated resource. We only need to look at the alerts, as the solution is self-healing. 

Scalability depends on how the architect designs the cluster. Once a Kubernetes cluster is up and running, the auto-scaling works according to the basic design. If I need a different node pool, then I need to create a design cluster. If this is done correctly, scalability by design or architecture is not an issue. It is up to the individual architects to be disciplined in considering future needs and build in flexibility.

The initial setup of AKS is a breeze. Straight out of the box, with experience, it takes only 30 minutes. Setting up a secure cluster takes only 30 minutes. I use Terraform extensively, so it is pretty easy to set up. I would rate the initial setup a five out of five for ease of setup.

I did the deployment of AKS myself with two other people. One from networking with an infrastructure point of view to handle the set-up of the V-Net by controlling the IP address range. The other person is the one who manages Azure Active Directory.

There is an initial infrastructure cost, however, the more services you deploy, the cost per service comes down drastically because you are leveraging the underlying infrastructure. As you scale your operations, AKS becomes more cost-effective.

The cost of AKS is humongous, it is very expensive. You are charged based on the nodes, the networking, and the storage. Multi-clusters are another consideration, especially if you need to add firewalls.

It is important to keep in mind that the cost is not just the licensing, but also the human resource cost. Every organization should have some idea about what they should be putting into Kubernetes together with the type of people, and types of resources required to monitor, alert, and operate the solution.

Compared to Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service and OpenShift, Microsoft Azure has very specific guidance on how to secure an entire cluster with multiple inputs. This is really phenomenal. This guidance is missing in the other products.

Anyone considering AKS as a solution should be sure they consider the design carefully and give a lot of focus to the initial setup. 

I also recommend that the organization is clear on what its end goal is, otherwise they will incur too many additional costs. 

Lastly, keep in mind that it is difficult for the executive level to understand what Kubernetes is and that it is not the answer to everything.

Overall, I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service a seven out of ten.