zmorris

My feedback

  1. 122 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Diagnostics and Monitoring  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris supported this idea  · 
  2. 1,051 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 →
    zmorris supported this idea  · 
  3. 896 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    16 comments  ·  Cloud Services (Web and Worker Role)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris supported this idea  · 
  4. 714 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    15 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris supported this idea  · 
    zmorris commented  · 

    This or some similar 'mass delete' capability is a must.

    Having to retrieve entities first or having to know the entity partition and row key first and then issuing a separate delete request for every entity is not practical (and is expensive) for large historical tables (which is one of the primary use cases for table storage!).

  5. 10 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris shared this idea  · 
  6. 1,384 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    84 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris commented  · 

    MakerOfThings77 has a good idea. His suggestion would be a significant step in the right direction (ANY steps in ANY direction for Table Storage would be welcome at this point. Did Ballmer gut the storage team too....?)

    zmorris commented  · 

    seconded

    zmorris supported this idea  · 
  7. 1,679 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    48 comments  ·  Storage » Tables  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    zmorris supported this idea  · 
  8. 1,212 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    57 comments  ·  Cloud Services (Web and Worker Role)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Windows Azure Websites offers the ability to have smaller deployed websites. The ability to have multiple roles on a single VM instance is still in planning.

    zmorris commented  · 

    I second Daniel Pamich's comments.

    zmorris commented  · 

    Second Paul Brown and CuriousGeorge.

Feedback and Knowledge Base