4 ms·

>> we definitely knew how to prepare for traffic surges and keep our services "always on" Okay, but as a heavy customer of AWS for 10 years and Azure & GCP for

>> we definitely knew how to prepare for traffic surges and keep our services "always on" Okay, but as a heavy customer of AWS for 10 years and Azure & GCP for 6 years... there's some very valid criticism of the capacity planning and elasticity. I hit capacity, provisioning and scaling issues all the time in Azure regions. And many times the cause is not obvious because most services seem to be unaware that the resources are exhausted, and fail with seemingly unrelated errors and partial failure. edit: and to be fair, I'm not saying it's easy to build something like Azure or that I would do better. And I have a huge list of cases where Amazon's product engineering is terrible compared to Azure's. But... the problems I've seen all week in the UK aren't imaginary. I've had no such problems on Amazon.

outworlder 7y ago
> there's some very valid criticism of the capacity planning and elasticity. Indeed. Getting quota increases is also a much slower and involved process, compared to AWS or GCP. > and fail with seemingly unrelated errors and partial failure. Oh, don't get me started! If managers were forced to work with the Azure API, they would not choose it as the provider. The unclear error responses are the most aggravating part.
Thaxll 7y ago
AWS have the same sort of problems sometimes, try to use 100/1000s of some C5 instances in some regions.
- gregw2 7y ago
  even getting 20 r4.4xlarges in us-east1 in some AZs was a problem for our workloads a few months ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
godtoldmetodoit 7y ago
I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, but I was heavily taken back by the statement the author made as it felt right out of the early 2000's, ignoring the last 20 years of Microsoft's shift to services and the cloud. Azure clearly prioritized massively increasing their geographic footprint without the availability zones that AWS almost always deploys when they enter a new region, and I have no doubt they run leaner with less compute available then AWS. When I was on the telemetry team about 3 years ago, we were in the early days of transitioning from the internal only "physical cloud" that the Bing team had created years before into Azure, and it was full of pain for a service our size at that time.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

outworlder 7y ago

> there's some very valid criticism of the capacity planning and elasticity. Indeed. Getting quota increases is also a much slower and involved process, compared to AWS or GCP. > and fail with seemingly unrelated errors and partial failure. Oh, don't get me started! If managers were forced to work with the Azure API, they would not choose it as the provider. The unclear error responses are the most aggravating part.

Thaxll 7y ago

AWS have the same sort of problems sometimes, try to use 100/1000s of some C5 instances in some regions.

gregw2 7y ago
even getting 20 r4.4xlarges in us-east1 in some AZs was a problem for our workloads a few months ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

godtoldmetodoit 7y ago

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, but I was heavily taken back by the statement the author made as it felt right out of the early 2000's, ignoring the last 20 years of Microsoft's shift to services and the cloud. Azure clearly prioritized massively increasing their geographic footprint without the availability zones that AWS almost always deploys when they enter a new region, and I have no doubt they run leaner with less compute available then AWS. When I was on the telemetry team about 3 years ago, we were in the early days of transitioning from the internal only "physical cloud" that the Bing team had created years before into Azure, and it was full of pain for a service our size at that time.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]