8 ms·
Seems very low for public cloud provider.
by ed_blackburn 9y ago
Seems very low for public cloud provider.
- brianwawok 9y agoWho chooses to use Azure? Mostly MS shops. I see no compelling features for a FOSS shop.
- Ysx 9y agoVersus open source AWS? Google Cloud?
- rbanffy 9y agoWhy would you want to go with Azure over AWS or Google? Or Digital Ocean? Like GP said, I can see very few compelling features to adopt Microsoft's platform. Is there a killer feature I'm unaware of? edit: clarify. And "burn, karma, burn"
- abiox 9y agowell, i think "for a FOSS shop" is important context in that comment (simply asking "why use azure" is different). aws and gcp run plenty of bits that aren't "FOSS" in any respect, just like azure.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 9y agoDoes Azure have a killing feature that appeals to a non-Windows shop?
- hungerstrike 9y agoWhat makes one a "FOSS" shop? I use tons of FOSS in my products but I prefer SQL Server and ASP.NET for my backend. I also do most of my code editing from Windows and sometimes I use my Mac. I rarely use Linux to edit code or do anything desktop-related, but I still use it to run Redis instances. I'm still a FOSS shop. The people developing all their FOSS on Macbooks using a proprietary OS are still FOSS shops too. The world isn't black and white. Anyway, the thing I like about Azure over AWS is that it's more organized and simpler to deal with. Azure is focused on high-quality while AWS pretty much throws spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. That's why AWS has 3 of every type of service.
- rrhd 9y agoWhy wouldn't you, other than hatred of MS.
- Kuraj 9y agoAs a .NET developer, I am provided with a MSDN sub by my employer and it comes with a monthly Azure allowance I can spend on whatever. So somewhere down the road, even if I quit and decide to work with FOSS, for me the reason might be familiarity - which is not unlike the reason a lot of people insist on using other Microsoft products.
- kbutler 9y agoSo you are a professional, self-deceived (edit:that was an autocorrect from self-described!! I'd have downvoted me, too.) developer-on-microsoft the definition of an "MS shop", even if you later choose to diversify your platform.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mattmanser 9y agoI thought we were over the MS hate last decade? While I personally feel the performance of Azure is bad vs cost, and the management portal is a mess UI and performance wise, it's a decent product. Nothing like deploying your app from scratch from Git in a couple of clicks. I also filed a support call the other day and got truly exemplary phone support within a few hours from someone who definitely knew their stuff.
- Aloha 9y agoSome places don't have a choice but to be a Microsoft shop - if your customers use Microsoft, your product had better run in their ecosystem.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- johnnycarcin 9y agoAs someone who works at MSFT in the Azure space I can tell you that the statement of "Who chooses to use Azure? Mostly MS shops" is inaccurate in my experience. Of all of the customers I've worked with, most of their architecture is at least 50% linux/OSS, typically more like 75%. I've honestly yet to see a customer moving to Azure who has more than 50% Windows based systems. Almost everyone I've worked with only uses Windows Server for their SQL Server services, outside of that it's RHEL, CentOS or Ubuntu. With that being said, the typical appeal of Azure (and likely other cloud providers) are the PaaS services. Those typically do have Windows VMs sitting behind them, although we are starting to make Linux an option on most of those.
- rsynnott 9y agoIt seems likely that most people who use SQL Server were at least Microsoft shops at some time in the past, though; otherwise why are they using SQL Server? Very few people start a project using SQL Server if they're not otherwise using MS stuff.
- johnnycarcin 9y agoUsually, again this is just in my experience, it's typically tied to a single service that makes up a larger system. So they might have some data in MySQL that has an API fronting it that is managed by one team. Then they have another service that uses SQL Server fronted by another API and managed by a different team. Both of those APIs are used by something larger. Sometimes it's because a long time ago the service was done by a whole different set of people and now some other group has inherited it and just doesn't want to port it to something else even though everything else they use is open source. These are typically the groups who go to the Azure SQL PaaS service because they don't want to manage something that they don't really care for. There is a ton of fragmentation out there :)
- gaius 9y agoWe'll see this change as SQL Server on Linux matures.
- 9y ago
- nailer 9y agoAzure's UX is less of a tyre-fire of complexity than AWS, on the other hand it breaks more.
- SEJeff 9y agoThey allow you to have native RDMA[1] for your VMs, something neither amazon or google will give you. As an oldhat Linux/Unix guy, it is somewhat amusing to think of Microsoft's cloud offering as the high perf one, but the facts don't lie. If you have true HPC style workloads such as bioinformatics, oil/natgas exploration, finance, etc, the extra node to node communication bits are necessary. The QDR fabric they have has a native speed of 40 Gbps. It is a shame they don't have FDR (56G) or EDR (100G), but still is quite impressive depending on your app. This also could be a game changer for large MPI jobs. In short, there are reasons, they likely aren't ones that matter to you, but they exist (as I type this from my RHEL7 work desktop!) [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/sizes-hpc#rdma-capable-instances https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/wind...
- latencyloser 9y agoAlso, many companies that are competitors to Amazon in some form or another. Those tend to be the larger customers in my experience. Source: Am MSFT dev on the Azure side of things.
- Nux 9y agoNot really, considering the main user base of Azure are the Windows/M$ people. Goes to show Linux has truly become the swiss army knife of computing.
- megaman22 9y agoJoke I heard this week was that 2017 is finally the year of the Linux desktop... except its the Linux subsystem embedded in Windows 10 desktops.
- cjsuk 9y agoThe irony of this being is that it sucks bad enough still that I'm using Virtualbox + vagrant on my windows desktop. Windows is a window manager for Chrome, vagrant/vbox, putty. I even use OWA for outlook on windows.
- blinkingled 9y agoWhy not Hyper-V instead of VBOX? Much better in every aspect other than maybe desktop. I wish Linux gained enhanced session support.
- abiox 9y agoin my experience hyper-v doesn't handle graphical stuff very well, so a desktop linux experience much worse than vmware workstation or virtualbox.
- nlawalker 9y agoYeah I miss this as well. I have a Hyper-V Linux VM into which I have mounted a share from the Windows host, and it works great for everything I can do from SSH, but the graphical desktop performance is awful.
- cjsuk 9y agoI've run Hyper-V in production with SCVMM. No thanks. More seriously, it's not portable and not something I want to invest in any further brain-wise. Plus you can't drive half of it with vagrant. I burned about 4 days recently learning that.
- kyberias 9y ago?? Azure is used mainly by Microsoft customers who prefer Windows VMs, so the low number of Linux VMs is not surprising. It's actually surprisingly high.
- MichaelGG 9y agoEspecially because as of a year ago, Hyper V still had terrible, terrible, time support. Kernel logs are filled with spam about the clock being jumped. Time sync constantly drifts seconds all over. Compared to our Linux VMs on GCP, which get millisecond sync and stay that way because NTP actually works on whatever platform they use. It's shocking that Windows still has no proper NTP support and people are OK with their clocks being so off. Makes logging and debugging certain issues a bigger pain.
- kyberias 9y agoI'm not so sure Azure is running Hyper-V, like the same that comes as part of Windows. So any Windows Hyper-V limitations might not apply to Azure and vice versa.
- rsynnott 9y agoSelection bias; most people who want Windows will use Azure (it at least used to be quite a bit cheaper than the rest for Windows, and it doesn't treat it as a second-class citizen). On the other hand, there's arguably little reason to use Azure if you just want Linux; it's less mature than AWS and not generally cheaper. I suspect most Linux users have some sort of hybrid system and are using _both_.