How can we improve Azure Virtual Machines?

Upload VHDX

A support for uploading VHDX images would be great. With that it wouldn't be necessary anymore to migrate a VHDX to VHD before.

330 votes
Sign in
Sign in with: oidc
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Horizon_Net shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
planned  ·  Corey Sanders [MSFT] responded  · 

We are currently looking at adding native support to VHDX. No committed date, just yet.


Sign in
Sign in with: oidc
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I just noticed that this feedback item, which currently has 308 votes making it #2, does NOT show up on the Feedback Forums home page. Even if you filter by Status = "Planned" (which it purportedly is) it doesn't show up. What's with that? Are they sweeping it under the rug?

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Hey! Microsoft! We're testing out Azure as a DR solution and I prepared a VHDX test image only to find that it wasn't supported. What the heck?

  • Tamo commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Sounds like Microsoft does not breach what they do. is VHDX bad and that is why Azure does not use it? Should we stop using VHDX on our on-premise Hyper-V ? I am curious why Azure does not support VHDX, is it because Azure runs on 2008 servers?

  • KenB commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Coming up on 5 years of "looking into it". Needed this yesterday. Let's go!

  • Robert Sloan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    It would be nice if Microsoft announced Gen2 support instead of leaving everyone in the dark. It makes you wonder if they are even working on it.

  • Cliff Schomburg commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Would someone from the Azure product team validate this feedback and provide a response? This is an important feature for many of us based on the comments below and total number of votes.

  • Stefan Cuypers commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We want to implement Azure site recovery, but have over 50 servers that are Generation 2 with GPT boot disk. That does not seem to work for Azure site recovery which essentially makes it unusable for us.

  • TJ Cornish commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed - "Cloud First" is running on a platform 2 generations old. Let's go here folks!

    We need VHDX support because of the time it takes to downconvert during an Azure Site Recovery failover operation. This adds 20 minutes to an hour to recovery time.

  • Troy Davis commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Still waiting to hear (over 2yrs now on OP) when Gen2/VHDX will be supported...I feel like calling out "Bueller...Bueller..."

  • Kelvin commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I've not seen any more feedback on this issue, although that's not to say it hasn't been implemented (hopefully it has) but would appreciate some specific confirmation on full Gen2/VHDX support on Azure - and if still not done, when please ? Thanks

  • Thomas Lee commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    We need support for larger disks in particular - and that means we need VHDXs supported.

    This feedback has been around for over a year - is there any likely timescale?

  • Thomas Lee commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This bit of feedback has been around now for over three years. Is there any likely time frame for adding this? It is a deployment barrier to many of my customers who had and need larger VHDXs.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    It's kind of embarassing to MS that Azure doesn't support VHDX, drives over 1TB, and many other Hyper-V premium features. It makes Microsoft's cloud story a lot less persuasive. Glad I wasn't an all-in early adopter and only used Azure when it made direct financial sense. Though even then, I'm running into obstacles with ASR. Luckily I have other options. I feel bad for those that thought "Cloud First" was anything other than a marketing slogan and an excuse to not work on the on-prem System Center, Exchange, and SharePoint, and instead force customers into inferior and more expensive cloud offerings.

  • TJ Cornish commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Any update on timing? We're testing Azure Site Recovery and the down-converting of the VHDX to VHD means our failover time is 30 minutes or more for a small virtual machine, vs. just a few minutes for a machine that doesn't require a drive conversion.

    Downgrading our production servers to VHD is not an acceptable tradeoff.

  • Luke Latham commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Still "planned" ... from August of 2013 to December of 2015?? I'm just trying to take my shiny new Nano Server .vhdx image that I just created and get it mounted out of blob storage as an ARM VM in the new Azure Portal. I guess I'll have to dig into PS commands, but I don't understand why its taking so long to have such a simple feature put into the new Azure Portal.

  • Luke Latham commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    WHY is this taking so long????? We have Nano Server out in TP4 now (Dec, 2015), we're making .vhdx images to mount, and we can't mount them into ARM VM's in the new Azure Portal yet. Good grief! This was filed by the OP in March!

  • Jon Sykes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    When will vhdx support be available? adding 1TB disks to IaaS VMs is ridiculous to try to meet storage requirements

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base