Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am doing some preliminary research on Windows Azure. The idea is to move 200+ ASP classic websites to Windows Azure. I am wondering if this is possible and feasible? Can I host that many websites on a single VM? Also note that each website needs to have its own set of email addresses.
There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't host all those sites on Azure VM (assuming you're talking about the preview Virtual Machine functionality). You get your own isolated machine, with its own IIS and IP. What you put on it is up to you, but it's no different than getting a VPS from any other company (rackspace etc.).
Obviously this is assuming that your sites are not very resource heavy and the memory etc. you get with different VM sizes can support the use.
Marek's answer isn't wrong, but please don't use "Virtual Machines" for this, and instead use Cloud Services (specifically, a web role). A web role lets you deploy just your code (in this case: websites) without having to mess with managing a full VM.
In short, PaaS is better than IaaS, as long as your app fits the model (which IIS-based websites do in Windows Azure).
I don't know what "each website needs to have its own set of email addresses" means or how it relates.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I'd like to make a Microsoft Flow workflow in the cloud use an on-premises website.
I'm beginning to think it's not possible.
To begin testing, I setup a simple flow based on a recurrence.
Each recurrence, it tries to access a website on my local HTTP website on my domain using an HTTP step.
I've setup an on-premises data gateway on local machine and in the azure portal, but have no way of associating that with a flow or HTTP step.
Microsoft documentation says the data gateways don't support HTTPs traffic, so I made sure I had a working HTTP binding for the site.
I'm not sure if I could design a custom connector for HTTP or not. This is not a web api, this is just a standard unsecured website behind my firewall that has some company related data on it.
It seems to me like I shouldn't be the only one wanting to do this.
Any ideas?
Currently you cannot do that directly. How about exposing your on-premise HTTP Endpoint via Azure Relay or some other technology.
There is, however, an On-Premises Data Gateway for Microsoft Flow (which internally uses Azure Service Bus). This !! currently !! (2017-07-24) !! supports the following data sources:
SQL Server
SharePoint
Oracle
Informix
Filesystem
DB2
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a VNET with two App Services and one Windows VM in Azure. They are in the same VNET using VPN point-to-site.
I want to protect this environment with a WAF and have read that I can use Application Gateway WAF instead of the very expensive setup with App Service Environment and Barracuda.
Could anyone please explain how I can achieve this? The closest I have found is https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/application-gateway/application-gateway-web-application-firewall-portal .
In case someone has the same question, starting from July 2017, the Azure Application Gateway with Web Application Firewall supports App Services deployed in the multi-tenant environment. As described here.
More information on how to configure it here.
Support for Azure Web Apps as backend pool member is not currently supported on Application Gateway. However for App Service Environment (ASE) there is a workaround possible. Refer to this blog post - http://sabbour.me/how-to-run-an-app-service-behind-a-waf-enabled-application-gateway/
You can use a NSG to lockdown the Internet calls and only allow calls from the AG to the ASE.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Will Azure Websites support virtual network in the future. To enable an Azure Website to connect to VM:s and Cloud Services using a local ip within Azure instead of needing to open up the servers and services to everyone by using the public IP.
Is that something that's actively being developed or is such a feature way into the future. Or both.
i think feature has been there for a while, please checkout below article
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-websites-virtual-network-integration/
Quote:
Azure Websites is happy to announce support for integration between
your Azure VNET and your Azure Websites. While you cannot place your
Azure Website in an Azure VNET, the Virtual Network feature grants
your website access to resources running your VNET. This includes
being able to access web services or databases running on your Azure
Virtual Machines. If your VNET is connected to your on premise network
with Site to Site VPN, then your Azure Website will now be able to
access on premise systems through the Azure Websites Virtual Network
feature. This feature is currently in Preview and will continue to be
improved on the road to GA.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Hi guy a bit of strange one.
I have started working with a developer/designer who builds websites for my clients. I pay him a fee for the website and then he charges me a monthly fee for the hosting/maintenance.
Now we charge the customer £15/month for the hosting.
My developer/designer has asked for £7.50/month for hosting + a 1 off fee of £5 to add the website to his server claiming it costs him £5 for every website he adds to the server.
My question is does it cost him £5 extra for every website he adds to the the server or not? He hosts the websites using Azure cloud.
I always thought you paid for the web server and you could then upload as many website as you like as long as it does not go over your bandwidth or free space.
Assuming you're using Azure Web Apps as you have stated in your description, you would pay per App Service Plan. Of course this may not be the case, and your hoster may have additional costs which he may be passing on to you.
In specific cases, if you're hosting multiple web sites on a set amount of servers, the cost doesn't increase for each app, however there will be a degradation in performance, and at some point you will obviously have to increase the amount of servers the apps are hosted on. There may be additional costs for other resources as well.
Specifically for Azure Web Apps an App Service Plan is a mapping from sites to servers. So you can have a large amount of small apps running on a couple of servers, or a small amount of large apps running on the same couple of servers. Provided that your App Service Plan is the same SKU and there are the same amount of instances in each, these will be the same cost.
That's why the billing page: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/app-service/plans/ has unlimited for the number of web apps. So to answer your question (if you are indeed using web apps), you will get billed for one App Service Plan (which may contain multiple servers) regardless of the number of apps you have in it, since regardless of the number of apps, you'll be using the same amount of servers.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking to move an existing application to the cloud. Its a ASP.Net application talking to a sql server database.
As far as I can see, I have 2 choices:
Web and Worker Role Instances and Windows Virtual machines.
The price for Web and Worker Role Instances is greater than Windows Virtual machines - I am unsure why this is?
Why would I want to use Web and Worker Role Instances over a Windows virtual machine?
Virtual Machines is currently in Preview. As such, operating costs are discounted. See here for the Preview vs. GA (General Availability) pricing. You'll see that, during Preview, Virtual Machines run $0.08 / core / hour, vs. $0.115 / hour in GA. This explains the lower cost vs. Cloud Service web/worker roles (which are in GA and not in Preview).
As far as reasons for using Web/Worker over Virtual Machines, that has probably been answered elsewhere (but worthy of a separate question nevertheless).
Web and Worker Roles come under the Platform as a Service (PaaS) umbrella whereas Azure Virtual Machines (Currently in Preview) offer an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) solution. Web and Worker Roles provide a platform you can deploy your .NET application to, directly from your development environment. Web and Worker Roles automatically handle the provisioning of IIS, opening of endpoints and the load-balancing of your application across multiple instances.
Virtual Machines on the other hand provide a bare bones Server 2008 system you can configure to meet your requirements. A VM is preferable if you need to run custom applications that aren't easily deployable within IIS. But effectively you can do what you want with a VM as you are paying for the infrastructure, the flip side of that is your dealing with all the configuration overhead that comes with managing infrastructure.
If you're running a web application I would use a Web Role, it may be more expensive than a VM but there's a great deal going on under the covers that abstract away many of the problems of developing, deploying, maintaining and scaling a web application. Also if you need a 'High Availability' solution with automated Fail over, a web-role with two instances comes with a 99.95% SLA.