Thank you for your feedback. This work is planned for the coming year. For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for your feedback. We are currently in public preview of static website hosting for Azure Storage to enable this scenario. Check out the blog post here for more details: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-storage-static-web-hosting-public-preview. The feature set includes support for default documents and custom error documents for HTTP status code 404.
For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at email@example.com.
You can now use the Azure CDN to access blobs with custom domains over HTTPS. See the following article for instructions on how to do so: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/storage-https-custom-domain-cdn. Having talked to a number of customers, we concluded that this solution addresses many scenarios where the need for HTTPS access to blobs with custom domains exists.
Native Azure Storage support for using SSL to access blobs at custom domains is still on our backlog. We would love to hear about your scenarios where using the Azure CDN is not an acceptable solution, either by posting on this thread or sending us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Almost 3 years... Any update?
We have made some great progress on this idea and most of our services today do support move resources across groups.
We are still working towards 100% support and while we do that it would be great if you can help us prioritize the missing services.
Please file individual asks on each service category present in uservoice and vote for it.
Azure Portal Team
378 votesunder review · 31 comments · Azure portal » Resource management · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Looks kinda weird to me, because MS will be providing (at some point) scaled down hosting unit - smaller VMs or GAE like hosting. Cloud computing aims to really match the processing power with the allocated resources. The fact that a single worker can be vastly underused is just an artifact caused my the lack of small hosting unit.
We keep updating out pricing rates and models to better align with our customers business needs.
Pay-as-you-go is about as good as it can be. Except that Azure is still lacking tiny VMs that would lower the entry barrier for small, low traffic apps, I can't think of a better pricing model (unless obviously you consider 'free ala google' as a pricing model).
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.
Although, I am definitively very eager to see Azure offering very small VM (say 1/8th of the actual entry size), I think multi-roles instance defeat the purpose of VM isolation, and is going to end up with the same problems plaguing shared hosting. Hence, my own humble opinion is rather adverse to this idea.
Then, if people really wants to have many many websites on a single VM, the custom VM image will provide a solution for that in the near future anyway. It will cause the same sort of havoc than what you get in shared hosting (even if you're only sharing hosting within the same company, been there, done that), but at least it would not look like as being encouraged as a good practice by Microsoft.
We understand this is a top customer ask and as such it is currently on our backlog to be prioritized. We will update when the status changes.