Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Reviews

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.

It is a hosting platform for creating web applications and deploying them. 

The serverless capability and auto scale feature are the most valuable. 

More control over Infra scanning can be introduced. 

I have been using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for ten months. 

The stability of the solution needs improvement. I rate the stability a six out of ten.

It is a scalable solution but can be further improved based on the user requirements. Presently, a few hundred users are using the solution. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. Some log maintenance is needed. I rate the setup an eight out of ten. 

The pricing of the solution is same as Azure Stack. 

It really depends upon the usage. If they really have the use case to go cloud, they can use it, but still, it is more applicable for people who want to get into software engineering and web development. Especially in the financial domain or e-commerce, where you would be relying on websites. 

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

I am using AKS on a Cosmos DB database. AKS is similar to AWS in stability and scalability, but when used with C#, AKS is easier to deploy and better to use because I use .NET applications.

The documentation makes it easier to deploy AKS, so it is the most valuable feature.

The onboarding process could be improved. For example, when you open Azure's main port, it is not very easy to access the servers because you need to put your mail and password, and sometimes you need to configure the authenticator. Depending on the case, this could be a problem.

I have been using AKS for two years, and I am using the latest version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The customer support has been good.

The initial setup was very easy.

I have not seen a return on investment since I have only used the solution in my company for two months.

The solution is not very expensive. It is expensive when used on the Cosmos DB database.

The solution has good documentation and is easy to use and deploy. AKS is a good place to start your business. I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I use the solution for infrastructure services on platforms. It can be used for running virtual instances on Azure.

Integration and automation are the best features of the solution. It is interesting to see what it could deliver by integrating all the services.

The product should make the initial setup easier. The product should provide an online format where I can see, read, study and research it on demand.

I have been using the solution for around five years.

I don't see any stability issues with the multiple servers integrated into Azure.

Scalability is one of the top benefits when you migrate to the cloud. We can go directly from 20 users to 10,000 users.

The initial setup is complex.

Nothing in Azure is as easy as plug-and-play. Most of the time, the product is cloud-based. There are on-premise solutions for very specific cases. As a representative of cybersecurity operations, I have to do research and read the manuals. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

The solution's most valuable feature is the ease of integrating with multiple platforms and environments.

The solution could provide even better integration functions.

I have been using the solution for a year.

The solution's technical support is excellent.

Positive

The solution's license is less expensive than OpenShift. I rate its pricing as a ten.

I rate the solution as a ten.

Our customers use the solution to develop their business applications.

The solution's dashboard integration with Kubernetes helps us manage workloads easily.

They should work on improving the solution's integration with API. They should add an option for installing open-source tools such as Kube-State-Metrics to leverage the community.

We have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is more stable than EKS. Although, we face some issues while upgrading it. I rate its stability as an eight.

Our customers have around 50-60 developers using the solution in their organizations. I rate its scalability as an eight.

The solution's customer service team resolves the technical issues accurately. But it takes a long time to reply to queries.

The solution is simple to install compared to AWS, which needs many prerequisites to follow.

The solution is expensive compared to other vendors. I rate its pricing as a five.

I have evaluated IBM Cloud, GKE, and AWS. They all are similar to AKS and have a few advantages over it. But AKS is better than them in terms of implementation, scalability, accessibility, and overall services.

The solution is excellent. But sometimes, it couldn't provide specific metrics. In addition, integrating it with Azure's metric app also fails to generate the expected results.

I rate the solution as a seven.

Our primary use case is to host our applications for Azure Cloud, rather than hosting the application on our on-premises infrastructure. We are hosting our applications in Kubernetes in Azure Cloud. I work for a product waste company, central components wherein during the weekend the traffic is more and during the weekdays the traffic is less. During festival time, the web traffic is more. So we need some kind of automatic solution. When the web traffic is more, the Kubernetes Service auto-scales, increasing the number of resources like horizontal scaling or vertical scaling. And if the web traffic is less, it descales, like releasing some of the resources. Kubernetes helps in autoscaling and that is why we migrated from on-premises to Kubernetes.

The most valuable feature is the autoscaling and self-healing. In our application, we have multiple replicas. If one of the replicas is not working due to anything, a new replica is automatically created.

I would like to see a graphical user interface.

I have been working with Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) for the past three years.

There is excellent stability.

There is above-average scalability and we do have plans to increase our usage.

The initial setup is complex and not straightforward. I think it would be helpful if we had some type of script for the installation to make it easier.

We used a vendor team lens from the Mirantis company.

Minikube is one small Kubernetes cluster. With minikube, we can install this on our local laptop and we can practice. So to know Kubernetes, we have a concept of minikube which can be installed on a local laptop and we can practice Kubernetes commands. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) an eight.

AKS is a new technology for deploying a solution on microservice infrastructure. Most organizations are moving to this kind of solution. Its use case is for deployment, full-layer automation, and modernization technology. We are partners with Azure and have an enterprise agreement with them. 

A valuable aspect of this solution is the management feature monitored by the cloud service provider. 

Microsoft has an application firewall but it doesn't have all the good features and there is room for enhancement. The Microsoft in-grade controller has many issues that need to be solved. It's very important for us because we use Microsoft for 90% of our work and this is currently not a complete product. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The stability is good. 

The solution is flexible in terms of scalability. 

Customer service is very good with a prompt response time. They have a dedicated team to assist with support.

The initial setup is straightforward. Even if you go through the portal deployment, or the ARM template, it's very easy. Our deployment was large and scripting was done in the data form. I demonstrated it for the team on the non-production site and the application team carried out the same deployment on the production site with the help of automation.

The infrastructure part took three days because it was a total private cluster. The application deployment took longer, probably around six weeks, due to file and database-related issues. We have an in-house team with four dedicated people that provide maintenance. We also have operational staff that manages the pass services side and troubleshooting of AKS.

I think the ROI is very good. There are a lot of savings on the OS aspect. The container doesn't require the OS, it only needs some binary to run an application and that saves a lot of money. From a company perspective, it's very convenient.  

Licensing costs are reasonable, I believe somewhere around 30% cheaper than AWS.

Until they come up with a good ingress controller, I rate this product eight out of 10.