Simon Luckenuik

My feedback

  1. 55 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  2. 79 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Moving this work item to unplanned, as it is clear that this request is no for a global throughput limit.

    We do now offer the ability to limit your maximum instances in the Premium plan, which will allow you to avoid swamping downstream resources. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-premium-plan#plan-and-sku-settings

    We prioritized that above a max call per X limit, because our only control to limit throughput is to outright deny some number of requests above a threshold.

    Keep the feedback coming!
    Alex
    Azure Functions Team

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  3. 26 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Azure Functions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is an awesome idea, and we’re exploring a few options to make it a reality.
    However, the 600 connection limit per instance should be enough for most applications if you’re reusing or closing connections. If you truly need 600 open connections you are likely to run into the 10 minute timeout per execution.
    Even after we add this you will still need to be mindful of your connection management.

    Keep the votes coming!
    —Alex

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  4. 394 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  10 comments  ·  API Management » Integration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. 680 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  API Management » Defining APIs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. 601 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    12 comments  ·  API Management » Defining APIs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi all – we could really use more information on the use cases you would like us to deliver with this feature. To quote Darrel’s post below:

    Are you looking for some kind of UI in the portal to enable developers to subscribe to webhooks exposed by APIs?
    Or are you looking for the additional security provided API Management to limit what events a user can subscribe to?
    Do you want to correlate the API Management subscription ID with registered webhooks?
    Any information you can give about the scenarios you would like help with would be great.

    Many thanks

  7. 3,013 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    125 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi everyone,

    We recently announce the General Availability of Azure Active Directory Domain Services (Azure AD DS) authentication for Azure Files! By enabling integration with Azure AD DS, you can mount your Azure file share over SMB using Azure AD credentials from Azure AD DS domain joined Windows VMs with NTFS ACLs enforced. For more details, please refer to our blog post:http://aka.ms/azure-file-aadds-authentication-ga-blog.

    A part of the GA announcement, we shared the upcoming plan to extend the authentication support to Active Directory (AD) either hosted on-premises or in cloud. If you need an Azure Files solution with AD authentication today, you can consider installing Azure File Sync (AFS) on your Windows File Servers where AD integration is fully supported.

    If you are interested to hear future updates on Azure Files Active Directory Authentication, please complete this sign-up survey:https://aka.ms/AzureFilesADAuthPreviewSurvey.

    Thanks,
    Azure Files Team

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  8. 843 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    26 comments  ·  Storage » Blobs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Our apologies for not updating this ask earlier. Renaming Blobs is on our backlog, but is unlikely to be released in the coming year. Today, you can use the “Copy Blob” API as a workaround.

    Using the Azure Files service you can address Azure Storage like a network share using the SMB2.1 protocol.  This enables usage of normal Windows API’s to rename files and directories.  You can get started with the Files service by visiting https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/storage-dotnet-how-to-use-files.

    For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at azurestoragefeedback@microsoft.com.

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  9. 1,031 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    12 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  10. 588 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    71 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » B2C  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Due to various technical limitations, the first iteration of the customer-owned domains functionality will not be available for a few more months. We will provide an update as soon as we can get a more specific ETA.

    If you are looking to use custom domains to use javascript, we are now looking to enable that experience by providing a new (non-customizable) domain. Please look for updates here: https://feedback.azure.com/forums/169401-azure-active-directory/suggestions/15493536-add-support-for-javascript-inside-the-custom-ui-br

    /Parakh

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  11. 83 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  12. 786 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    need-feedback  ·  46 comments  ·  Notification Hubs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  13. 1,068 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    67 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » B2C  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We definitely recognize the popularity of this feature, and we discuss it constantly during the planning phases. However there are certain technical limitations in the system that add a large amount of development cost. Because of the cost and the fact that there is a workaround available, other features get prioritized over this one.

    That being said, please keep voting for it. The popularity of the feature does help bring it up and makes us reconsider every time.

    Apologies for the delay.

    /Parakh


    Old message:
    We’re doing some research both on the specifics of this ask as well as what it would take to support this.
    Is the ask here to do the same thing that regular Azure AD does (see: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2014/12/18/azure-active-directory-now-with-group-claims-and-application-roles/) or is are there different requirements around this for Azure AD B2C?

    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  14. 28 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  15. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  16. 364 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  17. 45 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. 591 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    29 comments  ·  Web Apps  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  19. 129 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  7 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 
  20. 384 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  2 comments  ·  Service Fabric  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Simon Luckenuik supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base