Dillon Brown
My feedback
-
12 votes
How many days do you want the changes to be stored? and where do you want to store them?
Dillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.
Dillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesDillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
35 votes
-
285 votesDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteDillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
36 votesDillon Brown
commented
Is this item complete now? There is a tutorial about "filtering" inbound traffic but it talks about DNAT and both the network and application rules seem to only be offered in the outbound direction.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/tutorial-firewall-dnat -
4 votesDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
159 votes
While this feature is under review, Shared Access Signatures (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazurestorage/archive/2012/06/12/introducing-table-sas-shared-access-signature-queue-sas-and-update-to-blob-sas.aspx) can be used to specify exact permissions for a table, partition, or entity, and distribute those to calling applications. Using this can reduce the risk of accidental deletions.
Dillon Brown
commented
This workaround is not much better than SAS, but if you stop short of giving the users full key access to the account and instead assign appropriate Data Action operations using RBAC, you can allow read, write etc. while preventing deletion.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-auth-aad-rbac?toc=%2fazure%2fstorage%2fqueues%2ftoc.json -
46 votesDillon Brown
commented
I believe this one is done:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/backup/backup-azure-linux-app-consistent -
16 votes
Thanks for the feature request, definitely a valid request we will look to fulfill. Though no plans to work on this right now.
Thanks,
OdedDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
24 votes
Just an update that we still have this on our backlog. If it gains more user support, we will look to prioritize this and add the view to our internal support center.
Thanks,
OdedDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesDillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes
This is definitely needed!
Let us know if there are specific cases where you’d like to be able to look at costs by the tags when they were applied vs. the current state of tags viewed retroactively. Understanding your needs will help ensure we cover the specifics for you.
Dillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
144 votes
This is a great idea and we would like to implement it though there are a few dependencies we need to meet first. We are leaving this on the roadmap for now to see if it gains more customer support which will help with prioritization.
Thanks,
OdedDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
36 votes
This is a valid request but not something that is planned at this time. Keep the votes coming.
—Colby
Dillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
We’ll take a look at this
Dillon Brown
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesDillon Brown
shared this idea
·
-
356 votesDillon Brown
supported this idea
·
Dillon Brown
commented
To do this manually, you have to disable and re-enable protection.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/site-recovery/azure-to-azure-support-matrix#support-for-vmdisk-management
This is covered by the AzureMonitor service tag now.