Marco

My feedback

  1. 297 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    17 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure IoT Solution Accelerators » Suggestion  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco shared this idea  · 
  3. 71 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Azure Monitor-Application Insights » SDK  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  4. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco commented  · 

    There are some scenarios where latency is more important than the risk of lost messages. TCP retransmission makes things even worse while sometimes a lost message data can just be superseded by a new packet flowing at decent data rate.

    Marco supported this idea  · 
  5. 51 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is not in our plans for now but definitively an interesting scenario.
    As of today you can already do so in different ways such as compressing data in your device code before sending and using an Azure Function on the back end that will be triggered each time a compressed message arrives. Not totally integrated into IoT Hub but gives you the choice of the compression format and flexibility in routing messages before decompressing content (using message headers for routing).

    Marco commented  · 

    JSON+gzip works well, but it can't be used with direct messages, as an example. A native implementation would be better

    Marco supported this idea  · 
  6. 15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  7. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco shared this idea  · 
  8. 97 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  9. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  10. 26 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  11. 221 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    38 comments  ·  Azure Monitor-Application Insights » SDK  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco commented  · 

    Adding my vote to this. If my API generates a 400, I'd like to see what's been sent to it.

    Marco supported this idea  · 
  12. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Marco supported this idea  · 
  13. 115 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco shared this idea  · 
  14. 30 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  15. 796 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  46 comments  ·  Notification Hubs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco commented  · 

    +1 still waiting, any update is welcome!

  16. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Networking » DDoS Protection  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  17. 29 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Monitor-Application Insights » SDK  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  18. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure IoT  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  19. 156 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Marco supported this idea  · 
  20. 4,723 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    146 comments  ·  Storage » Blobs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    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 azurestoragefeedback@microsoft.com.

    Marco supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base