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.

TJ Cornish

My feedback

  1. 122 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

    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    TJ Cornish commented  · 

    Agree with this - REFS is nonfunctional with DPM backups. RCT is nice, but the fragmentation it creates is untenable. I attemped a FS-level defrag of our volume; it ran for 4 weeks just trying to build a catalog of fragments. It never even began the defrag.

    DPM has always been a poor product - early on it was the ridiculous VSS partition engine that broke twice a week. Now they fixed that so DPM doesn't crash, but you have to rebuild the server every 3 months or nightly backups start taking more than 24 hours.

    The DPM2016 UR9 contains a note of a new Powershell commandlet parameter -CheckReplicaFragmentation.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/dataprotectionmanager/copy-dpmdatasourcereplica?view=systemcenter-ps-2019

    I ran that plus the copy step on one of my VMs. It still took 90 minutes to backup 40GB; 5 minutes longer than it took yesterday.

    MS supposedly "dogfoods" their own products. They must really like the taste of dog food then, because that's what this is. We all knew Ballmer was a sales moron. Satya is supposedly an visionary engineer. As much as I like the guy's personality, the majority of products MS has been churning out in his tenure have been unusably broken or unfinished, with newer versions arguably worse than the previous.

  2. 58 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
  3. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Site Recovery  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    TJ Cornish shared this idea  · 
  4. 3 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  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    TJ Cornish commented  · 

    Agreed. Previously accrued credits should be kept when restarting a deallocated machine.

  5. 16 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Site Recovery  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    under review  ·  Ruturaj Dhekane responded

    We are looking into this requirement. If you have any more requirements around this – kindly let us know via the comments.

  6. 461 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

    75 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
  7. 284 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

    20 comments  ·  Virtual Machines » Windows  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  8. 12 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

    1 comment  ·  Virtual Machines » Windows  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    TJ Cornish commented  · 

    We agree, and total VM throughput is hard to find in the documentation. The VM selection screen proudly shows "8000 IOPS" or whatever, but the reality at least for our general computing tasks is we are never even close to the IOPS limit, but we are limited by the VM throughput limit.

    This is especially frustrating in that a single transfer between drives on the machine costs twice - i.e. copying from the E drive to the F drive means your throughput is only half what is advertised as the machine capability.

    Machines like the E4s_v3 have 4 CPUs and relatively a lot of RAM - 32GB compared to a typical client machine (desktop or laptop), but the VM throughput limit is SO BAD compared to the experience on a typical client machine. It is very frustrating to have an application that runs faster on a $1000 desktop computer than on a $600/month Azure VM. Increasing to the next VM size gives us cores and RAM we don't need, and now we're talking $1000/month to have comparable performance to a $1000 to purchase desktop.

    I just found out about the new "L-series" storage-optimized VMs, which unfortunately aren't available in our region yet, but even these have a throughput limit that is only 33% faster than the E series (96MB/sec for E4s_V3 vs 125MB/sec for L4s). Limits across the board - A series, D series, E series, etc., should be 2X greater or more, and "storage optimized" machines should be faster yet.

  9. 2,304 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

    296 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  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 list and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature

  10. 22 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Site Recovery  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. 361 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

    25 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    The status of this item has been moved back to Under Review. We initially planned to move to VHDX support as part of our support for HyperV Gen2 VMs, but we ended up using the VHD format for Gen2 VMs as well. Some aspects of the Azure Infrastructure do not cleanly support VHDX OS or data disks. So this feature is dependent on some of these internal services being updated which is an ongoing process.

    TJ Cornish supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    TJ Cornish commented  · 

    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.

Feedback and Knowledge Base