Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 154 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Please provide a client for Mobile and Windows 10 desktop as well. In increasingly mobile-first groups and companies, it would be ideal to minimize or eliminate the need for on-premise server infrastructure.

    A Mobile/Win10 client would allow a business to place their entire infrastructure in the cloud, while benefiting from the full power of Azure Files.

  2. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous shared this idea  · 
  3. 3,241 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    195 comments  ·  Signup and Billing  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Quick update,

    We have been considering all of the risks and investigating the steps required to ensure we implement this feature with high positive impact and low to no negative impact.

    After this investigation we have decided we will enable Pay-As-You-Go customers the option to configure a spending limit on a Pay-As-You-Go subscription, with appropriate safeguards and measures to prevent both service abuse and production service failure.

    We have not yet finished determining the details of what this feature will look like, nor do we have a timeline for release, but we have heard your voices and have added this feature to our backlog.

    Thanks for your continued feedback,

    -Adam (Azure Billing Team)

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    In response to Mike's concerns about the many workflows that would not respond well to sudden unexpected termination: I propose segmenting workflows that can be halted, or that are more prone to being attacked, into a separate billing plan with a hard spending limit. Put the non-uninterruptible things in a billing plan without a limit. It should be up to the client to decide when the cost of having a process rudely interrupted is going to be less than the cost of continuing to have it run beyond billing expectations / allocation.

    Maybe some of us will get it wrong, and get burned. Then we will learn the hard way what not to interrupt, but at least the costs of recovering from that situation should be something manageable. It's too late to plan after the money has already been spent.

Feedback and Knowledge Base