Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

drg

My feedback

  1. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Container Instances  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    drg commented  · 

    In addition, we have recently discovered that vCPU for ACI includes Hyperthreading (HT). So you may be even more disappointed to learn that your second "vCPU" is actually just a HT and is in no way close to equal to doubling your processing. If you then go to 3 vCPU you jump to 2 cores + 2 HT (although you are limited to 3000 milli cpu) BUT you appear to get access to 2 physical cores. We have been paying for 4 vCPU and after a lot of digging discovered that what we really have is 2 cores + 2 HT. Our container processes data and is CPU bound...so the HT adds essentially zero additional capability. This is confirmed by reducing the allocated vCPU from 4 to 3...and seeing the processing time remain the same. SOOOO we are paying for 4 vCPU and actually only getting the CPU processing of 2. The GPU SKUs appear to allocate 1 to 1 core to vCPU. Our processing time on these SKUs scales as expected as we go from 1 to 6 vCPU. The down side is a.) 10+ minutes latency and b.) significantly higher cost for a GPU we are not utilizing. Beyond the absence of clear and forthright documentation, this is a highly misleading, deceptive and dishonest. I feel like this needs to be addressed and users should be compensated as they have paid for resources that were not provided.

  2. 229 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    30 comments  ·  Azure Container Instances  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    drg supported this idea  · 
  3. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Azure Monitor-Application Insights » Analytics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    drg commented  · 

    Same here. I use this a lot when tracking down performance problems.

    drg supported this idea  · 
  4. 1,721 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    49 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    drg supported this idea  · 
  5. 1,211 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    57 comments  ·  Cloud Services (Web and Worker Role)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Windows Azure Websites offers the ability to have smaller deployed websites. The ability to have multiple roles on a single VM instance is still in planning.

    drg supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base