10 Reviews and Ratings
9 Reviews and Ratings
No answers on this topic
To better serve their consumers, businesses that often interact with those clients who rely on Microsoft's software products may consider migrating to Azure. This program would be useful in any installation of a Microsoft product or suite that necessitates a test of the target environment. It is simple to maintain and implement, making it an ideal IT backbone. If a client doesn't have any use for this particular instrument, it's not going to be of any benefit to them.Incentivized
They're great to embed logic and code in a medium-small, cloud-native application, but they can become quite limiting for complex, enterprise applications.Incentivized
Ease of scriptingSchedulingCombination of Data SetsIncentivized
They natively integrate with many triggers from other Azure services, like Blob Storage or Event Grid, which is super handy when creating cloud-native applications on Azure (data wrangling pipelines, business process automation, data ingestion for IoT, ...)They natively support many common languages and frameworks, which makes them easily approachable by teams with a diverse backgroundThey are cheap solutions for low-usage or "seasonal" applications that exhibits a recurring usage/non-usage pattern (batch processing, montly reports, ...)Incentivized
The UI could be a little more clearer in my opinion.Password resets would be nice to have in any instance (not just the default area).Easier to migrate repeated account that may have been created.Incentivized
My biggest complaint is that they promote a development model that tightly couples the infrastructure with the app logic. This can be fine in many scenarios, but it can take some time to build the right abstractions if you want to decouple you application from this deployment model. This is true at least using .NET functions.In some points, they "leak" their abstraction and - from what I understood - they're actually based on the App Service/Web App "WebJob SDK" infrastructure. This makes sense, since they also share some legacy behavior from their ancestor.For larger projects, their mixing of logic, code and infrastructure can become difficult to manage. In these situations, good App Services or brand new Container Apps could be a better fit.Incentivized
Both are excellent resources that successfully deliver the promised benefits. Two rival businesses, each with its own distinct culture and set of goals. As far as IT assistance goes, I find Azure's user interface to be slightly more intuitive. Both resources are valuable and have their advantages and disadvantages. Both are crucial if you run a fast-paced business with a large consumer base.Incentivized
This is the most straightforward and easy-to-implement server less solution. App Service is great, but it's designed for websites, and it cannot scale automatically as easily as Azure Functions. Container Apps is a robust and scalable choice, but they need much more planning, development and general work to implement. Container Instances are the same as Container Apps, but they are extremely more limited in termos of capacity. Kubernetes Service si the classic pod container on Azure, but it requires highly skilled professional, and there are not many scenario where it should be used, especially in smaller teams.Incentivized
After setting things up we have reduced time in running all of the processingIt is promising in allowing us to concentrate on the data rather than the formatting and presentation that can all be automated after it has been processedWe have reduced the number of products we used before adopting BatchIncentivized
They allowed me to create solutions with low TCO for the customer, which loves the result and the low price, that helped me create solutions for more clients in less time.You can save up to 100% of your compute bill, if you stay under a certain tenant conditions.Incentivized