Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Azure Overtakes Amazon's Cloud In Performance Test

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the where-credit-is-due dept.

Cloud 82

alphadogg writes "Microsoft Azure's cloud outperformed Amazon Web Services in a series of rigorous tests conducted by Nasuni, a storage vendor that annually benchmarks cloud service providers (CSPs). Nasuni uses public cloud resources in its enterprise storage offering, so each year the company conducts a series of rigorous tests on the top CSPs' clouds in an effort to see which companies offer the best performing, most reliable infrastructure. Last year, Amazon Web Services' cloud came out on top, but this year Microsoft Azure outperformed AWS in performance and reliability measures. AWS is still better at handling extra-large storage volumes, while Nasuni found that the two OpenStack powered clouds it tested — from HP and Rackspace — were lacking, particularly at larger scales."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Web scale! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973089)

So Microsoft Azure is now web scale? Does it use MongoDB?

Re:Web scale! (0, Troll)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973257)

So Microsoft Azure is now web scale? Does it use MongoDB?

You wish. It uses Microsoft SQL which gives it multi day outages [iwgcr.org] . Search google for the string "replicas not helping" for more thoughts on the matter.

Re:Web scale! (2)

ahem (174666) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973435)

I think you missed the reference [xtranormal.com] . If you haven't seen it before, it's hilarious.

Re:Web scale! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973719)

Yeah, but fuck Microsoft because stuff.

Re:Web scale! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42983593)

Actually; I knew the joke (seen it used before in comments about database data loss - it seemed appropriate to Microsoft cloud) but hadn't seen the original video. Thanks for that one. It's almost better than the "I want an iPhone". Actually the video is pretty appropriate for Microsoft Azure which seems to be pretty much about "WebScale" whilst missing completely the fact that you need FOSS to properly get the scaling benefits of the cloud.

Re:Web scale! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42986361)

What exactly is there about FOSS that you need to "get the scaling benefits of the cloud"?

(SQL Azure is one of the storage options for Azure, but it's not the only one, and it's specifically the one that sacrifices scalability for the sake of retaining relational features. If you want scalability, you should be using Table Storage, which is basically the usual "NoSQL" key-indexed table thingy with no complex queries or joins).

Re:Web scale! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062555)

What exactly is there about FOSS that you need to "get the scaling benefits of the cloud"?

a) Ability to use 10X the amount of software installs and 10X the amount of virtual machines that you have ever used because today your special offer went viral on Slashdot.

b) Strong guarantees of future portability and availability on all different platforms by using an open source abstraction layer; either CentOS/Red Hat at the IaaS level or Python/Ruby/Java at the PaaS level where you know there is no single owner proprietary vendor that can stop the technology being ported to different cloud systems in future.

Re:Web scale! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062575)

Oh and I should add

a.1) and not getting arrested because just your software control software went a bit beserk and actually used twice as many OS instances at one moment as you thought you did and declared. When things go all dynamic they can get a bit weird. You do not want to have to explain that to a BSA audit crew.

In unrelated news... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973347)

Nasuni scores $20M to build out storage sales effort

Nasuni, which helps distributed companies manage their cloud storage securely, has $20 million in a new funding round — led by a mystery investor — to help it pay for new features and expand sales and marketing, said CEO Andres Rodriguez.

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/30/nasuni-scores-20m-to-build-out-storage-sales-effort/ [gigaom.com]

Re:In unrelated news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974207)

Never assume that benchmarks and the like are unbiased and come from a neutral party. When Microsoft is involved and compares favorably, assume the report is biased and the company conducting has been paid off. It's just learning from history.

Re:In unrelated news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976807)

So I assume since Amazon was named the top performer last year that Amazon paid off the company last year? Come on. It's just a benchmark study,and that's all. The below gives you a hint at who invests in Nasuni (its not Microsoft):
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/10/17/ex-emc-veteran-joins-board-at-cloud.html

wtf?!!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973111)

shouldn't this be a link to a shitty slash-cloud reblog?

Not really news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973165)

Azure has won cloud performance comparisons in the past, including a major 11-months test [informationweek.com] concluding two years ago. (via) [freetalklive.com]

--libman

Re:Not really news (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973595)

Yes but the thing is cloud environments are a shared medium.
If you just happen to get a node where someone is calculating Pi then your burstable CPU won't be as high as a node with light loads on it.

Now if no one else is using the node (e.g. Azure) then it will be blazing fast....and crash regularly.
Yeah ok that was a cheap shot. :P

Re:Not really news (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973975)

and crash regularly.
Yeah ok that was a cheap shot. :P

And it's not even a leap year!

In case people missed it the Azure network was off for an entire day last year due to a the extra day in a leap year. Since that shows a serious flaw in testing if nothing else it's difficult to take such a platform seriously.

Re:Not really news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989267)

....and crash regularly.

Very prescient... [slashdot.org] 8~0

--libman

Untrue (-1, Troll)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973203)

This can't be true. I know from years of reading Slashdot that MS is shit at everything, and that whatever it is they do, Ubuntu is better.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973299)

Hmm.... I thought Ubuntu was only used by people with MS background

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976469)

Spoken by a Slackware enthusiast from his mother's basement.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973377)

what do you think is powering azure?

captcha: donkeys

Re:Untrue (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974025)

Windows mostly.

Re:Untrue (1)

gewalker (57809) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973433)

Why not, considering that Azure will likely cost 2-3 times what AWS costs. Shouldn't MS be able to deliver a little more performance on dumb reads & writes. Even if the service is hosted on Windows boxes, surely they use something likely NAS for the actual backing store -- and the service hosting the service should be only a small portion of the end-to-end stack.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976519)

Azure has an interesting pricing model. The bottom level costs nothing, but the next level up is ridiculous, though the specs are all better than the others.

Re:Untrue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973447)

This can't be true. I know from years of reading Slashdot that MS is shit at everything, and that whatever it is they do, Ubuntu is better.

Your sarcasm not withstanding, even if it does outperform AWS/S3, a perfectly legitimate response is, "But it's still Microsoft, every dollar sent their way further rewards their misbehavior without which we might have choice, and not have spent literally MONTHS of our lives (cumulatively) troubleshooting their shitty, designed-to-fail software when their competitors software was superior, but not a viable option because of their anticompetitive behavior.

So fuck Microsoft, and anything they produce. EVER. That company, and the criminals who run/ran it are as far as I'm concerned beyond redemption.

If you've never watched a good, smaller company go under, and never seen all their employees get laid the fuck off, because Microsoft figured out how to game the system and break laws designed to protect competition, quite possibly through bribery or graft, on top of all that we know they did (it came out in court,) and as a result had a friend lose his house, his wife, his mind, and then kill himself over it, then you CAN'T UNDERSTAND, but hey, I don't expect you to.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking this. Many people in and around computing are too young to remember half the shit they did, so don't fucking judge. They are criminals who got away with it, but they're still criminals, and their fortunes are ill-gotten gains. The RICO Act should apply, and every time Gates makes the news for breaking off a little chump-change from the pile of money he shouldn't ever have had, and gives it to some worthy cause, it's a slap in the face to all the people he FUCKED OVER. The Microsoft tax is a legacy of their malfeasance. And no, I will NEVER FUCKING FORGIVE THEM. If, Insha'Allah, I outlive Microsoft, I will one day travel to Redmond to piss on their corporate grave. That will be my Haj. While doing so, I will shout "Allah-o-Akbar, motherfuckers," and I'm not even a Muslim!

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973587)

Riiiiiiight. Because Amazon is nothing but sunshine and bunnies. What an idiot you are.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974227)

And what a special kind of idiot you are, to fall into schoolyard thinking. Is Amazon evil? Yes. Does that make Microsoft less evil? No.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974629)

Riiiight. Namecalling. What a fuckhead you are.

See how that works? I don't know you, but called you a fuckhead. You don't know me but are willing to hurl insults. Two can play at that game, you inbred shiteating fuckface.

Also, I never said I liked Amazon. Go reread what I wrote, dumbass.

Re:Untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975623)

I know your type. Go eat shit, little freetard.

Re:Untrue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973641)

Hahaha wow. Maybe your shitty anonymous company fell apart because they delivered garbage products.

Re:Untrue (0)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974055)

If you've never watched a good, smaller company go under,

Good small companies do not go under (per definition). Shitty small companies with crap products and managers to match go under. If what you are blabbing about was true, there would be no companies making software for Windows.

Yes they do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974635)

Stacker.

Spyglass.

Both were cheated and then had lawsuits complete the bankruptcy.

And MS take over their assets.

Re:Yes they do. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975653)

Spyglass didn't go bankrupt. They were bought in a $2.5 billion stock swap by OpenTV.

Re:Untrue (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975079)

You must be kidding. These days Ubuntu gets more irrational hate on slashdot than Microsoft does. According to slashdot Mark Shuttleworth is killing kittens, kicking dogs, insulting disabled veterans, sniffing peoples underwear, and channeling Steve Jobs ghost.

Re:Untrue (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42986391)

Ironically, Ubuntu runs on Azure [windowsazure.com] these days (it's listed as one of the stock options when you create a new VM).

Of course it is! (5, Funny)

lactose99 (71132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973261)

When no one's using the platform of course its going to be faster than the competition when shared resources are concerned.

Re:Of course it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973455)

You have a strange definition of "no one". [zdnet.com] This was from almost a year ago too.

Re:Of course it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977471)

Apple uses Azure for iCloud......

Re:Of course it is! (5, Funny)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973787)

If a system is fast but nobody is there to use it, does it do things quickly?

Re:Of course it is! (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973943)

As quickly as anyone using the iCloud needs it to be.

Re:Of course it is! (0)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973927)

Let's see... there is nobody using Azure? So there are no iPads and no iPhones in use then? Nobody uses the iCloud? Really?

Oh, what you are saying is that you didn't know Apple didn't have the infrastructure or operating system to build a cloud offering and they therefore had to build the whole thing on Azure (striped on EC2)?

I'd say, with about 100 million iPads out there and almost three times as many iPhones sold, Azure might be the most used cloud infrastructure of all if you discount the email-only cloud Gmail.

Re:Of course it is! (1, Informative)

eWarz (610883) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974119)

You seem to be flaming this a lot. Let me clear the air for you. 1) 100 million ipad users is NOTHING. A large portion of both fortune 500 companies as well as non fortune 500 companies utilize Amazon Services in some form or fashion. We are talking far more than 100 million users here. 2) Apple utilizes BOTH Amazon AND Azure for the storage of files (and files only). 3) If you happen to work for microsoft (or own shares in microsoft), please note that Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft. This website is more linux oriented, and a LARGE portion of servers out there are NOT Windows based (I don't have the exact numbers, but i dare say that Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market. That alone makes Microsoft the minority in cloud computing. So you can understand now why everyone says there is nothing running on it. We don't even run our (microsoft shop) on Azure, simply due to it's restrictive nature. We utilize the much more open EC2 platform.

Windows Only? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975639)

>Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft

Um - no. It used to be windows and MS stack only. It's not any more.

Re:Of course it is! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975721)

We are talking far more than 100 million users here.

Sure, by making things up. The Fortune 500 companies combined do not employee even half of the 100+ million people you claim.

Re:Of course it is! (-1, Flamebait)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977465)

You seem to be flaming this a lot

And you seem to be ignorant, confident and dumb. A lethal combination. Lethal to you that is.

This website is more linux oriented ... Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market ... makes Microsoft the minority in cloud computing

Wow, you are even dumber than I originally thought, you don't even know the difference between the cloud and the web in general. Go get an education before you come back, your ignorance is currently dwarfing every other aspect of your personality.

So you can understand now why everyone says there is nothing running on it

No, I can see why dumb, ignorant religious nuts say so, they don't have an ounce of knowledge to share between them. As a computer professional I use the tools that work, some times that is Microsoft, some times it is Linux. It is never either or. It is only either or for unemployable religious nuts.

linux is losing ground in the big companies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42984691)

I don't have the exact numbers, but i dare say that Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market.

That position seems to be eroding. Microsoft can give you HIPAA/HITECH, SOX, GLB and FDA regulatory compliance cheaper than linux, because the "regulatory grade" linux vendors like Red Hat are charging quite a bit more than Microsoft now. I'm allowed to run any number of Windows systems on Hyper-V, which is stable and reliable, or I can pay for every host on RHEVM, which is not reliable and doesn't really work 100% unless you've got a Microsoft Active Directory backend anyway. FreeIPA is slowly achieving parity (by picking up AD features) but FOSS-style LDAP/starttls and solidly secure old LDAPS are not supported by RHEVM which was built around Microsoft-style kerberized AD with Microsoft-style groups.

Red Hat turned their cash cow over to a bunch of unpaid kids, who made a really great college student OS out of what used to be a great enterprise server, but meanwhile Microsoft built a CLI, an RTL, and a solid virtualization environment. If it wasn't for the suckiness of MS SQL server there'd be no commercial advantage to running linux any more, it's just cheaper (in a regulated environment) to run Microsoft.

Re:Of course it is! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42986425)

3) If you happen to work for microsoft (or own shares in microsoft), please note that Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft. This website is more linux oriented, and a LARGE portion of servers out there are NOT Windows based (I don't have the exact numbers, but i dare say that Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market.

I do work for Microsoft. As it happens, some of the code that I write has to run Linux, and to test it, I run Linux on Azure VMs. The ability to do so has been there since June last year, if I remember correctly.

How do they define cloud? (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973309)

I wish there was a standard definition of "cloud". From the article, it sounds like they are just creating and deleting AWS S3 objects and timing the transfer rates. I guess that's in line with the traditional definition of a cloud server, but I'd be more interested in seeing how EC2 stacks up against the competition.

I'm sure S3 object benchmarks mean something to someone, but seems to be an awfully simplistic measurement. It'd be more useful to see how well each service scales across many users since individual object manipulation time is only a small part of the story for people that depend on the cloud for scalability. It could take one provider more time to manipulate a single object, but still be faster when serving that object to a million users.

Re:How do they define cloud? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973395)

/kloud/ : Noun : A visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere, typically high above the ground.

Re:How do they define cloud? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973457)

If you've never dealt with Amazon's confusing line-up of services, then you might overlook how hard it is to compare two services to each other.

Re:How do they define cloud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973691)

I feel like that is the point. By making it hard to compare, it is harder to choose which meets your minimums, so you end up buying more than you need.

Re:How do they define cloud? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973805)

If you've never dealt with Amazon's confusing line-up of services, then you might overlook how hard it is to compare two services to each other.

I completely agree, but it seems a little misleading to say "Azure beats Amazon's Cloud!" when they are just looking at one tiny piece of their cloud offerings.

Re:How do they define cloud? (2)

PTBarnum (233319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974657)

Since Nasuni is a storage vendor, it makes sense that they are benchmarking cloud storage rather than cloud compute.

Re:How do they define cloud? (1)

crdotson (224356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42992573)

There are a lot of definitions of cloud, true, with one of the most prevalent bring whatever will separate you from your wallet. However the NIST definition is fairly well accepted.

Not sure if test is a good one (3, Insightful)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973381)

Upload speed shouldnt be your only benchmark. If I upload a 10GB file to my raspberry pi server in the other room, its way quicker than either of these. Clearly raspberry pis overtake Azure and Amazon's cloud.

Joyent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973407)

How does Joyent compare?

Short answer: clouds still suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973525)

There's nothing new here, The cleanest dirty shirt is still dirty.

There no reason to use "cloud" services, especially those hosted in the US (due to Patriot Act)

You have three primary use cases for clouds, if you're not one of these, don't use clouds, don't use VPS and just buy your own equipment:
a) Gaming servers - Clouds/VPS are a no-no. Gaming must squeeze out all the performance possible, and all cloud systems fail or crash at heavy loads.
b) CDN end points - Particularly for streaming(eg netflix,) this is again a no-no, since you have no control over CPU process/thread allocations.
c) Grid Computing - Same with Gaming servers, heavy CPU load makes this a non-starter

Where should you use cloud/VPS?
1) Small web hosting - Vanity, business-card sites, the kind that get so little traffic they don't justify the cost of a real server. But VPS solutions are overpriced for these as well. You're still better off ... buying a Rasberry Pi and loading your site on it and running it off a SOHO connection.
2) Fault-tolerance - In the case of Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft themselves, they have a lot of file servers (think Windows Update, iTunes, Xbox Marketplace/Vuze, and similar where the files are downloaded) because they can scale the loads as necessary. These are very specific and very engineered things. Since they own the equipment, it's effectively free for them to use it. Everything unused they can sell services to the public.

Openstack is effectively just ISP's seeing $'s in their eyes that they can offer an inferior offering to AWS and charge the same price. Hopefully a lot of these cloud vendors merge or die and some actual competition happens. Right now what is being offered is all crap.
https://www.zunicore.com/

Play with the knobs the the first page...
1 core, 1GB ram, 10GB space , 30$/mo , ok that doesn't look so bad if I never use the damn thing.
4 core, 8GB ram, 100GB space, 229.60/mo, you got to be kidding me, I can buy a real server every month for that price with those specs.

And this says nothing about bandwidth, error correction, disk performance, or anything else that you'd get if you actually bought the physical machine.

Of course it did (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973571)

Azure has nothing running on it. Amazon's cloud had to handle all those annoying customers soaking up their CPU and network.

Re:Of course it did (0)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973951)

Azure has nothing running on it

So 100 million iPad users and maybe twice as many iPhone users is nothing? The iCloud runs on Azure.

Re:Of course it did (0)

eWarz (610883) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974147)

You seem to be flaming this a lot. Let me clear the air for you.

1) 100 million ipad users is NOTHING. A large portion of both fortune 500 companies as well as non fortune 500 companies utilize Amazon Services in some form or fashion. We are talking far more than 100 million users here.

2) Apple utilizes BOTH Amazon AND Azure for the storage of files (and files only).

3) If you happen to work for microsoft (or own shares in microsoft), please note that Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft. This website is more linux oriented, and a LARGE portion of servers out there are NOT Windows based (I don't have the exact numbers, but i dare say that Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market. That alone makes Microsoft the minority in cloud computing.

So you can understand now why everyone says there is nothing running on it. We don't even run our (microsoft shop) on Azure, simply due to it's restrictive nature. We utilize the much more open EC2 platform.

Re:Of course it did (4, Informative)

compupc1 (138208) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975013)

Actually Azure does support Linux servers (SUSE and Ubuntu). It is NOT strictly Windows and NOT strictly Microsoft. In addition to generic Linux servers, they support platform-as-a-service applications written in Java, PHP, Python, and Node.JS. In other words, not just .NET. They support not just SQL Server databases, but also MySQL and various embedded database and no-SQL options. I believe they are also working on supporting automated build/deployment from Git repositories in addition to TFS.

I neither work for nor own shares of Microsoft. But I have used both Azure and Amazon services. You may or may not like Microsoft as a company (or even Azure as a platform), but you're simply spreading misinformation. Azure has come a LONG way in the past year or two, and in a good way that embraces both traditional Microsoft and open-source technologies. This choice is a VERY good thing.

Re:Of course it did (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976777)

I completely agree. A lot of people are running Linux and Windows on Azure, just like they are definitely running both OSes on Amazon

Re:Of course it did (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42975155)

We use both EC2 and Azure. Each has its strengths. But you should know that you can run any stack you like on Azure in the infrastructure as service offering and they have web roles for such things as node.js. They also have canned configs for mongodb and couchdb.

So, you didn't really clear anything up so much as make a series of untrue (probably just out of date) statements....

Re:Of course it did (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975805)

1) 100 million ipad users is NOTHING. A large portion of both fortune 500 companies as well as non fortune 500 companies utilize Amazon Services in some form or fashion. We are talking far more than 100 million users here.

There are currently around 145 million people employed in the US. The Fortune 500 in 2006 employed around 25 million people and even at an extremely high 5% growth YOY that would still only be 35 million employees. A far cry from the 100+ million you claim above and here. So, sorry, but you can keep repeating this faulty claim but its still wrong.

Re:Of course it did (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42976885)

If you happen to work for microsoft (or own shares in microsoft), please note that Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft

Only for the ignorant bashers. As with any religion, a little knowledge is the cure for your ignorance. I recommend you acquire some.

Re:Of course it did (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42979123)

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/17/forrester-report-shows-amazon-aws-reigns-supreme-with-developers-as-windows-azure-gains-momentum/ [techcrunch.com]

Honestly, my tongue was in my cheek, both because I hadn't refreshed lately on Azure vs. AWS usage, and because I assumed any performance study would isolate external usage as a variable. But it does appear Azure is still much less used than AWS, especially when you combine the "EC2" and "Amazon services" responses (though I'm impressed that Azure has come as far as it has in just 2 years).

And note, iCloud uses only file services, iirc, and uses both Azure and Amazon, also iirc, though I don't know the mix.

Of course, that is just a survey. Otoh, it's from Forrester, which is often accused of a bias for MS (I have no idea of the truth of that).

Yes, but ... Microsoft (5, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42973741)

1. I don't know who these Nasuni people are and am not sure why I should care.
2. My experience of Microsoft over 2 decades is of a company that seems to be mostly stumbling along and not quite getting things right, occasionally hitting the target seemingly by accident, engaging in questionable business practices to ensure their market position and generally being a company many avoid doing business with if they can.
3. Amazon, by contrast has been a pleasure to do business with from my first day as a customer, continually improves it's services in a way that most people seem happy with, occasionally surprises me with things like AutoRip and is a company that most of my family (extended too) is happy to do business with. Dealing with Amazon as a partner may leave something to be desired, but dealing with Amazon as a customer is almost always a pleasure.

Given that MIcrosoft is a company that thrives by forcing customers to accept what *it* wants, while Amazon seems to be a company that thrives on giving customers what they want, my initial reaction to this report is:

Meh. So what? It's a little bit faster now - but ... Microsoft. Amazon will probably narrow and exceed that performance gap in a reasonable time frame if that's what their customers find important. So jumping over to Azure based on this report might make short-term sense, but doesn't make sense to the long-term thinker.

Addendum: What all of the above really says is that any genuine talent or ability Microsoft may have is undermined by how it chooses to do business and the resulting reputation it has earned. Which is a damned shame, particularly for all the people that work there and believe in what they do.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973891)

I have a history disliking Microsoft so I shall continue to do so.

FTFY.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974283)

I have a history disliking Microsoft so I shall continue to do so.

I liked Microsoft back when they wrote BASIC 2.0 for the Commodore 64.
BASIC 7.0 for the Commodore 128 was pretty cool too.

I can't say I've enjoyed using any of their products since those two.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975003)

I have a history disliking Microsoft so I shall continue to do so.

FTFY.

Wait, did you, AC, just "quote" a statement you totally made up? I don't see that statement in my post, and it's not an accurate summary either. Nice try though.

There's no "history" of disliking Microsoft - I'm as ambivalent about the company emotionally as I am about any company - they aren't people, whatever the legal fictions say. I use their products or I don't, depending on what I need and the general experience I get. What I said was that I have a long experience with the company, their products and referred to my experience as a customer during that time. There's no dislike, only disappointment punctuated by brief periods of satisfaction. If they evolve into a company with whom doing business is a pleasure, I have no problem discontinuing the mythical dislike you ascribe to me. So I'm not really sure what your point was, other than snark.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42977847)

Wait, did you, AC, just "quote" a statement you totally made up? I don't see that statement in my post, and it's not an accurate summary either. Nice try though.

Different AC here: No, this isn't what he did. He just quickly summed up what you said in a more honest format. You seem to forget that anyone can click on your "leet" name and see your comment history. My favorite tidbit from just he first page: "Proprietary codebases are often a mess compared to a high quality open codebase."

I can understand that some people are just different. Some men swear allegiance to FOSS just as some men avoid sex with women (homosexuals) or consuming meat (vegetarians). Hey, you are what you are. But, to be called out and then not have the balls to own up to it? That just makes you a coward.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987639)

Hush and let the grownups talk.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42990857)

Hello again, "Different AC".

Would you or "Original AC" care to comment on this?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/02/23/1415231/certificate-expiry-leads-to-total-outage-for-microsoft-azure-secured-storage [slashdot.org]

Despite your implied accusation that I just have an 'innate' dislike for Microsoft which makes my skepticism a given, thus questionable, I would in fact argue that my skepticism is well founded. The story above doesn't speak well for the customer experience for Azure users, even given the outages experienced by users of Amazon's cloud. Based on both my own direct personal experience with the company and it's products (starting with MS-DOS sometime in 1982), second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences with products I haven't owned and being a student of the Microsoft's history for most of its existence, I'd say they get things wrong a large proportion of the time. That's the basis for skepticism about Azure, not some inborn 'dislike'. When they get things right, I'm happy to pay for and use Microsoft products - this is being posted from Windows 7 (my current primary desktop OS) and typed on a Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard.

I stand by my original skepticism about the significance of the performance test and my belief that it should carry less weight when choosing between products than the long-term history of a company with respect to the customer experience. If you'd care to counter that assertion with something resembling a rational argument rather than lobbing personal attacks from behind the safe wall of anonymous cowardice, I'd be happy to read it.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976733)

Amazon has a reputation of eating its partners for lunch, which will hurt them dearly in the long run. Both Amazon and Microsoft have great cloud platforms (I've used them both). In fact if you really want to leverage the cloud to the best of its capabilities you use at least two cloud providers, so it is great to have two good options in the market, and both have booming businesses in this space. So I don't feel sorry at all for those at Microsoft, because they have done a lot of things right and are getting business from it, and will continue to thrive with Amazon in this space. In the end there will be a few major providers of cloud services and it is pretty clear that Amazon and Microsoft will be two of them.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42986473)

But people using AWS are not Amazon's partners - they are Amazon's customers.

(ditto for MS and Azure)

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42976805)

occasionally surprises

Verily, quarterly outages in Virginia are always a surprise to be welcomed, sure.

Re:Yes, but ... Microsoft (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42978041)

And this is all if you assume that their findings are both truthful and meaningful in practice. They're measuring abstracted synthetics, and we have no idea if this game wasn't rigged (as is almost always the case with Microsoft products and performance).

leap day (2)

thoth (7907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42974167)

Last year, Amazon Web Services' cloud came out on top, but this year Microsoft Azure outperformed AWS in performance and reliability measures.

Well, the difference is last year there was a leap day, which took Azure down for half the day, and this year there wasn't!

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42974267)

Something positive on Slashdot about Microsoft?! The site whose very existence over the past decade and a half was to bash one single company?! I'm sure the comment section will NOT be filled with bile and vitriol!!

of course they did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42986435)

Because Azure is empty unlike Amazon's servers which are choca-block full with crap.

Azure Expired SSL Certificate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988837)

Saw this right after I read a news item that said they just 'forgot' to renew their certs. They really promote confidence!

http://technology.inquirer.net/23309/microsoft-lapse-cause-outages-in-azure-service

Not touching this with a ten-foot nyancat rainbow.

Microsoft has a history of forgetting (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42989003)

Like in this case [slashdot.org] a decade ago.

Well that didn't last long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989571)

Next day, all of Azure is down.

MS is going to have to pay Nasuni more next year, to cover the loss in credibility.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>