←back to thread

285 points alephnerd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.242s | source
Show context
neya ◴[] No.41901576[source]
If you use Azure in any realistic production environments, then it's on you. Even with $100k in free credits, they couldn't convince me to use it for more than a month. It is expensive, the interface is highly user unfriendly and most important of all, their products don't at all seem reliable for production workloads because of stuff like this. Sorry Microsoft, I think you can do much better.
replies(15): >>41901755 #>>41902286 #>>41902571 #>>41902679 #>>41902715 #>>41903167 #>>41903320 #>>41903580 #>>41903869 #>>41904371 #>>41904976 #>>41905535 #>>41905826 #>>41905858 #>>41907485 #
rhaps0dy ◴[] No.41903869[source]
Azure Blob storage is considerably cheaper than S3 or Google, for example. (Not cheaper than Cloudflare, but that one doesn't have a supported FUSE driver). I've been trying hard to find instances where they lost data and could not.

Them offering the ~same product but cheaper is good.

replies(2): >>41904039 #>>41904612 #
1. gruez ◴[] No.41904612[source]
>Azure Blob storage is considerably cheaper than S3 or Google, for example

Really? I did a quick search and azure charges 2.08 cents per GB for "hot" storage compared to 2.3 cents for aws. That's not that big of a difference. Am I missing something?