Update: Microsoft will be moving away from UserVoice sites on a product-by-product basis throughout the 2021 calendar year. We will leverage 1st party solutions for customer feedback. Learn more here.

Peter Bertok

My feedback

  1. 450 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    27 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Support for both public and private IP at the same time is available on both V1 and V2 SKU. Customers can host multiple sites behind the same IP and port using multi-site listener today.

    Support for allowing same port on both public and private IP is in the roadmap.

    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  2. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  3. 34 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which 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.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Peter Bertok commented  · 

    The old Basic load balancers forced customers to use Availability Sets, so lots of deployments over-used them. Now it's almost impossible to fix this at scale.

    The script recommended in the Microsoft docs page is DANGEROUS and will DELETE settings without warning! This includes: Tags, Identity, VM Extensions, Azure Backup configuration, Diagnostics profiles, IAM, hybrid licensing, and probably many more.

    That's if the script works. It's step #1 is to delete the source VM, so if it fails in any way you'll lose your VM and all associated settings with no chance at recovery.

    Microsoft should be ashamed.

    Let this sink in: Microsoft in 2021 is still "triaging" the need to perform any kind of maintenance on a high-availability feature, and their public solution results in DATA LOSS!

    Related: It's impossible to update the Proximity Placement Group of VMs in an Availability Set without turning all of them off concurrently. The availability feature forces an outage!

    Also related: Upgrading from a Basic Load Balancer to Standard is also a delete & recreate, similarly loses settings, and also forces an outage.

    As is typical with Microsoft: Their high availability solutions cause more outages than they prevent.

    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  4. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Virtual Machines » Windows  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to upvote which allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature list and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Peter Bertok commented  · 

    This is an important feature for Windows 10 Multiuser images, which are commonly used for Remote Desktop Services and Citrix Apps & Virtual Desktops. These are functionally equivalent to Windows Server 2019 and are used for large fleets of multi-user servers where good network performance is essential.

    This is a basic feature that requires nothing more than: a) two additional drivers in the images, b) the portal to allow the updated images to enable accelerated networking.

    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  5. 181 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    15 comments  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. 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.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Peter Bertok commented  · 

    Similarly, it's impossible check if the Microsoft.RecoveryServices/vaults/backupstorageconfig resource has a storageTypeState of "Locked", because the condition expression for that deployment first has to check if the resource exists.

    Hence, there is no way to make an ARM Template that can set crossRegionRestoreFlag to true and then be redeployed! The crossRegionRestoreFlag locks the vault, and the redeployment will fail.

    If you get clever and put in a condition to check the crossRegionRestoreFlag with the "reference()" function, then the first deployment will fail.

    The Microsoft-provided samples cheat: they have a manually specified parameter value that they use to toggle the storage configuration on and off.

    IMHO, Azure's ARM team should have a unit test that validates that every template can be redeployed without having to change parameters or jump through hoops like this.

    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  6. 142 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    18 comments  ·  Azure Key Vault » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Peter Bertok commented  · 

    Is there any ETA on this being resolved? It seems to be fundamentally broken and there's no word from any Azure techs about a planned resolution...

    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  7. 177 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  14 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  8. 149 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Networking » Network Security Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Peter Bertok commented  · 

    Fine-grained rules would be highly desirable, e.g.: to permit "back-end" IP addresses only for things such as external SharePoint PWA components running on IaaS virtual machines.

    Similarly, regional and service-specific Service Tags are practically mandatory for a whole range of Office 365 integrated applications.

  9. 38 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok supported this idea  · 
  10. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Networking » Virtual Network  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok shared this idea  · 
  11. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Server » Bugs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Peter Bertok shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base