In Visual Studio 2013, I have a solution that holds several projects, including multiple class libraries, as well as an MVC5 project to serve HTML pages to clients.If I get the free tier, can I host my entire solution, including all the projects that it holds? Microsoft's own documentation on this matter is not clear, and I was hoping someone here has already used the Azure platform for hosting their website.
Does Microsoft's Azure Hosting allow the hosting of n-tier applications?
Sure, why not? You can host every tier of your application separatly in Azure (DBs, web sites, services, background jobs, etc.) in different services provided by Azure. In the free tier you have the limitation of sites you can create for free (Azure Web Sites), limitation of cores (don't know the exact limit) and the costs you produce. If your costs exceeds the limit all of your resources will be shut down.
Related
I want to deploy Kentico 9 site on Azure and want to use shared file system for my media content, can you please suggest which Azure configuration (Azure Cloud Services or Azure Web Apps) I should referred?
I'd highly recommend going with Web App over Cloud Services. Mainly because Web App is almost like running on a regular server where Cloud Services is quite a bit different and harder to work with in my opinion.
Check this article out regarding some issues with Kentico and Azure Blog storage as well as how to setup your storage provider to only store media files.
http://www.kehrendev.com/blog/brenden-kehren/may-2016/problems-with-azure-and-kentico
Could you describe what do you mean by shared file system for my media content?
From my experience - it`s (a little bit) easier to deploy (and maintain) Kentico to Azure Web Apps but they do not provide so many customizations - in my humble opinion - the biggest one is you are not able to connect via remote desktop (but this is supported by Azure Cloud Services).
Please note - if you are using Cloud Services you must use Azure Blob Storage - source - which could be in conflict with your requirements.
You can find more information about Web Apps vs Cloud Services vs Virtual Machines on the mentioned page.
TL;DR; - if you do not need customizations, remote desktop and startup tasks - go for WebApps. If not, try to specify more requirements.
You can also check comparinson of the technologies from the Microsoft`s point of view here.
It's not clear who you want to share the media with...
If you want to share the assets amongst more Kentico instances or with a 3rd party system, I'd probably use the Azure Blob Storage. Kentico comes with a dedicated file provider for this exact use out of the box. It's called CMS.AzureStorage.
Using the blob storage is not a limiting factor in terms of hosting your app. You can still use all available options: Web Apps, VM or Cloud Service. There are some technical implications, of course. But they're all described in the documentation.
I recommend checking the comparison matrix to find a hosting option that suits your need best. Kentico recommends using App Service (Web Apps) for most projects as it's easiest to maintain. However, you can't use certain features like Kentico Windows services, for instance. Question is, do you really need them?
We will be hosting TFS in a private cloud on VM(s). Are there technical differences to hosting TFS on Azure or AWS, or is it only a matter of pricing and which cloud a team prefers and has past knowledge of? I also think we won't go the Visual Studio Online route.
At InCycle, we have a full TFS 2015 installation hosted in Azure spread across something like 6-8 VMs. You'll need to take into account the standard considerations (virtual machine sizing and performance), especially on the data tier, which should have plenty of fast disks and lots of CPU and RAM.
You'll also need to consider Active Directory sync and how you'll get access to things like build drops on-premise from Azure.
Honestly, VSO will almost certainly be a lot cheaper for you, and you won't have to worry about the infrastructure requirements or upgrading TFS on a regular basis.
The ALM rangers have excellent guidance on this, as well: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/bharry/archive/2014/06/06/team-foundation-server-on-azure-iaas-guidance.aspx
We are moving a range of Cloud services Web Roles to Azure websites - currently running on App Service plan/pricing tier - Standard 1 medium.
The websites are all identical and at some point we will re-write out code base to be properly multi-tenanted. However we are currently hosting them as multiple websites on a single Azure web hosting plan.
In terms of memory usage will Azure share the identical Dlls e.g. all the Nuget packages/core application Dll? Or do we need enough memory to load a copy of each Dll per websites? Effectively I am hoping to share you can share common assemblies across AppPools.
I have seen mention of settings that MS was adding to IIS to support better density for shared hosting providers. I believe .Net 4.5 added support for interned Dll. Are there any settings etc that affect how Azure handles this situation? We are currently running at 94% memory consumption of our 3.5GB and wanted to understand whether we would need to scale up soon. I would hope Azure would be able to do something under the covers as obviously MS want to maximize density.
Each WebApp is isolated by the app-pool so if you have multiple copies of the same site, even if they are identical, they will all load their own copy of the assembly into memory.
There is also the security sandbox due to the multitenant nature of the service so interning will not work against that.
To monitor memory usage, you can look at the app service plan. Also useful is process explorer (WebApp>tools>process explorer)
I've recently been asked to redevelop an .Net 2.0 WinForms application with a back end SQL Server Express DB.
One of the requirements is to allow remote users access to the application, so I've been considering hosted options to avoid VPN setup. The data is not sensitive and does not fall under data protection act, so a basic security approach for the web will cover me.
I like the idea of using Azure for a few reasons, but I'm not sure if a good fit for a users base of 5 or 6 with no real scope to grow. I've never used Azure and I plan to develop using MVC and a SQL backend as this is my main skillset.
A few points in favour of Azure in my mind are:
Tight integration with the TFS preview that I'm using for this project
Easy to setup a sandpit and a live version
Easy maintenance as I expect other hosted options will require more knowledge of underlying OS
Sticking to a full Microsoft stack should hopefully make things simpler
From what I find on the Azure site the message is all about scalability, which is great if you need it.
My question is simply, do you need a large user base, or plans to grow quickly, to use azure or is it how we should be hosting apps now?
What you're asking here is the perfect case for Windows Azure Web Sites:
You get 10 web sites for free (no custom DNS, but this is perfect for your 'sandpit'/test version). The shared mode supports custom DNS and is very cheap.
Tight integration with TFS preview and GitHub
You don't need to worry about the underlying OS, you simply publish from Visual Studio or with TFS Preview.
Sticking to the Microsoft stack is the easiest solution, but other technologies work great aswell. Since you're talking about MVC I'm assuming you are considering ASP.NET MVC, which is a perfect match with Windows Azure. Take a look at the training kit for some good examples.
The day you'll need a solution which more scalable (meaning you'll have more users and more income) you can easily upgrade to a reserved instance or to a Cloud Service (Web/Worker Role).
About your question: "My question is simply, do you need a large user base, or plans to grow quickly, to use azure or is it how we should be hosting apps now?"
Windows Azure is a cloud service platform (includes PaaS as Cloud Services, IaaS as Windows Azure Virtual Machines and also Websites suggest by Sandrino above), and with cloud services you have ability to start very small and grow as much and as quickly as your user requirement is, so you can use Azure with both cases. On the other hand there are some advantages using certain offering depend on your which service you are going to use to run your application.
I think article (Section: "What Should I Use? Making a Choice") will explain the strategy about how you make a selection among various services.
This SO discussion does talks about the difference between cloud Services and Azure WebSites as well.
is there a way to set the timeout of an app pool of a web-site running under azure sites.
I have a site running there and it seems like it needs to spin up again when it has been idle for a while.
Since the relevant answer is in the comments it is easy to miss it. Currently Azure Web Apps support the Always On feature, that keeps your app in memory. It is available in Basic and upper tiers and you can configure it from the portal:
Resource_Group > Web App > Settings > Application settings
If you want to achieve the same effect in Free or Shared tiers you can create a webjob that will ping your website to keep it in memory. There are numerous blog posts how to achieve this 1, 2, etc.
Windows Azure Web Sites supports two modes, shared and Reserved.
In Shared mode, your web site process (w3wp) runs alongside other, sharing resources including CPU and memory. The runtime (that is Windows Azure Web Sites system) remove sites from memory after period of idleness – that is when your site doesn’t get any traffic. The runtime make the decisions removing sites, bases on many parameters, and even if you change the configuration, it may not apply, as the runtime may override that configuration.
If you are looking for your site to always be in memory, you may want to look into switching to Reserved Instance, in which your site(s) are running on their own VM(s) and the system is much more flexible in terms of resource utilization.
Yochay (PM Azure Web Sites)
If you're referring to the new Windows Azure Web Sites, I don't believe you have any option for controlling app pool timeout. This is a shared, managed service, where you simply upload your site, with the details of IIS etc. taken care of for you. You can look through the published management page, and you'll see that this is not an option.