Microsoft Azure Container Service Reviews

We are a solution provider and we help our clients to implement services. In this role, I make use of this product. It is generally used for container services to install images, such as Docker files. This includes storing images in a repository.

Using this solution means that you don't have to store and secure your container images within a private network.

The most valuable feature is that you don't have to maintain the infrastructure. It is an out-of-the-box service that is hosted by Azure.

It is a secure way to store container images.

It has integration capability with multiple CICD tools and platforms that are available in the market.

API support is very good. You can use it to create calls to upload images, download images, and manage the repository.

Microsoft has provided a lot of documentation that is available online.

In the future, I would like to see it generalized and have the ability to better integrate with open-source tools.

I have been working with the Azure Container Service for between two and three years.

As this is a PaaS that is provided by Azure, it means that if there were any issues then they would have to be publically addressed by Microsoft. I have not lately heard of any problems from my customers.

It is quite easy to scale. I work with medium and large-scale companies in sectors such as energy and banking.

I have been in touch with the Microsoft technical support team many times. Generally it is good, although it depends on the type of support that you have. They have multiple support plans available, and my interaction with them depends on the support that they subscribe to.

Some of my clients have premium support plans, in which an engineer will be assigned to you. They track each and every issue and it will be a pretty quick turnaround time for the issues that you face.

If you are on a standard support plan then it has its own affiliates that will be followed up by Microsoft. Even in this case, the response time is quite good.

I have worked with similar solutions including the Amazon Cloud Platform, two years ago.

Most big cloud platforms have their own capabilities but the majority of functionality is in common. It comes down to the advantages and disadvantages of each solution. Some points in Azure are better, whereas other points in AWS are better.

Microsoft has come up with a service called Azure DevOps, which is a good platform that none of the other providers have right now. It provides the capability to automate your CICD processes or DevOps processes within the organization.

AWS has pipeline capability but they don't have a platform that is equal to Azure DevOps. Azure will give you pipelines, test plans for testing things, and they provide functionality for managing your work.

The initial setup is straightforward and not complex.

This is a PaaS solution that is hosted on Azure and we can configure it based on our needs. To spin up Container Services in Azure will take between 15 and 20 minutes. Automation of this is also possible either through ARM or Terraform.

Initially, to start with Container Services, any one person can do it by following the documentation that is available online. The documentation will help to determine the best design of the infrastructure, based on the requirements such as security. 

If the customer has a complicated set of requirements then we may have to give them some advice with respect to implementation.

As a cloud platform, there are multiple options available for licensing. The costs depend on the resources that you use, and there is a cost-management system to help calculate it. The number of hours will affect the total cost.

The licensing cost is for the support, so it varies depending on the plan and the agreement. In the case of an enterprise-level plan, the cost is an agreement between Microsoft and the organization.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that it is a good option to use because it is more secure. You can secure your images and your code, which are stored on that cloud. You have dedicated access and you can integrate it with Azure Active directory. 

It is also a PaaS offering, which means that you don't need to manage your repositories. You only need to manage your data within them. Finally, it is cost-effective in terms of storing data.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is for training purposes, and for reading about what our colleagues do globally. So we basically use it for our customer projects.

Microsoft Azure Container Service is a great program and I like its usability and the time it takes to market. It is very fast to deploy as part of the DevOps and it has a good security level. So I think the usability and the pricing based on desktop cost make it a good product.

I believe that the support can be faster. I would also like to see easier implementation and better documentation. But it's also a Pandora's box. I believe that one can always do better. 

I also believe that security and integration can be better, so it would be nice to see an improvement there.

I have been using this solution for just under a year now.

Microsoft Azure Container Service has a good level of stability.

I believe the program is scalable. I am the only end-user of this program, so I don't have experience of how it will work in larger environments. Our clients are enterprise businesses.

I am not sure about the technical support - it depends on the kind of issue I'm having and what the actual problem is. But I believe the SME network is important because they have experience from different customer cases. 

I wasn't very impressed with the documentation, so if I had been able to follow the guidelines and employ an implementation, it would have been easier to set up and install the program. So I would say it was semi-easy, semi-difficult, in the middle.

The pricing is good.

Of course, I can recommend this program to others, but they must first do an overall study and analyze the program to verify that it is business-driven, not technology-driven. In the next version, I would like to see better security because it is rather limited in this version. Updating the security would be great, as well as more integration of capabilities.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this program an eight. This is simply because I only use it in a lab environment - I don't have any other experience of the program. 

The primary use case of this solution is for critical applications. I have it on two servers and for storage outside of my company.

The most valuable features are that it is simple, and the compression of the data.

It's a solution that uses very little bandwidth.

It is very easy to use.

The customization is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see integration with the Microsoft Business ERP solution.

This solution is stable, I have not had any issues.

This solution is scalable, it's good.

We have fifteen users and two of them are engineers.

To date, I have not contacted technical support and I correct the issues myself.

Previously I tried Carbonite. I switched because Microsoft Azure is more competitive and more stable.

The initial setup is simple.

It took approximately two months to deploy this solution.

I am the administrator and the only person who maintains this solution. You only need one person.

I implemented this solution. I did not use any vendors or integrators.

The only other solution that I had used and evaluated was called Carbonite.

This is a very good solution and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.