I read plenty of articles about Azure and .NET Service Bus. I think I understand technical part but at the moment I'm missing the main point - some "cases studies" which should explain me what kind of projects should be moved to cloud. Suppose that I'm starting new project. How can I decide if my project fits to Azure platform?
我阅读了很多关于Azure和.NET Service Bus的文章。我想我理解技术部分，但目前我忽略了主要观点 - 一些“案例研究”应该解释我应该将哪些项目转移到云端。假设我正在开始新项目。如何确定我的项目是否适合Azure平台？
What are common scenarios for Azure? Is it for world wide B2C applications, local B2C applications or also for "internal" B2B applications? How can I decide if global Azure is better than local infrastructure or local server hosting provider? What are pros and cons of moving to Azure when compared to other scenarios?
Azure的常见方案是什么？它适用于全球B2C应用程序，本地B2C应用程序还是“内部”B2B应用程序？如何确定全局Azure是否优于本地基础架构或本地服务器托管提供商？与其他方案相比，迁移到Azure的优缺点是什么？
Also I'm interested in real experience. Did you deploy any real project to Azure? What is your experience? Is Azure already mature? Many technologies needs several (at least 3) realeases before they become usable. Is it the same with Azure?
我也对真实的经历感兴趣。您是否将任何真实项目部署到Azure？你有什么经历？ Azure已经成熟了吗？许多技术在可用之前需要几个（至少3个）重新发布。与Azure相同吗？
My last concern is about security and trust. Do you trust Azure platform? I read article which demonstrated some hypothetical banking transactions over Azure with usage of SQL Azure service. Is it really something that can be securely done on Azure?
我最后一个担心的是安全和信任。你相信Azure平台吗？我阅读了一篇文章，该文章演示了使用SQL Azure服务在Azure上进行的一些假设银行交易。它真的可以在Azure上安全地完成吗？
There is similar post but I didn't find answers there.
有类似的帖子，但我没有在那里找到答案。
Edit:
编辑：
I read this article today. It also explains some of my questions.
我今天读了这篇文章。它还解释了我的一些问题。
6 个解决方案
#1
7
One of the best scenarios for Azure is an application for which you are hoping for viral growth. Yes, it is almost foolish to have such expectations, but there are a certain class of applications -- notably "social" applications -- that are only going to live if they experience viral growth.
Azure的最佳方案之一是您希望病毒式增长的应用程序。是的，拥有这样的期望几乎是愚蠢的，但是有一类应用程序 - 特别是“社交”应用程序 - 只有在它们经历病毒式增长时才能生存。
It is extremely difficult to plan your own infrastructure in such a way that it can adapt to that kind of growth without having extended outage periods or at least loyalty-threatening slowdowns. You're always going to be behind, reacting to resource shortages unless you are constantly over-supplying for expected need in which case you are potentially using your capital poorly and shortening your runway.
规划自己的基础设施是非常困难的，因为它可以适应这种增长，而不会延长停电时间或至少降低忠诚度的速度。你总是会落后，对资源短缺作出反应，除非你经常过度供应预期的需求，在这种情况下，你可能会使用你的资金，缩短你的跑道。
Azure addresses those problems neatly. You can add resources as you need them. You can respond to usage spikes on a few minutes notice, adding new resources through the Azure management console.
Azure巧妙地解决了这些问题。您可以根据需要添加资源。您可以在几分钟后响应使用高峰，通过Azure管理控制台添加新资源。
I think that there are many other scenarios for which Azure is an excellent match, but the one that I have described is a fairly compelling case, I think.
我认为还有很多其他场景，Azure是一个很好的匹配，但我认为，我所描述的是一个相当引人注目的案例。
#2
8
[Edit]
[编辑]
Just discovered this 10 month old post of mine. Well, things change. We went from Microsoft to Ruby, Coffeescript, Node.js and a bit of Scala and never regretted it. Heroku and MongoHQ proved to be much better fit for what we are doing.
刚发现我这个10个月大的帖子。事情变了。我们从微软转到Ruby，Coffeescript，Node.js和一些Scala，从不后悔。事实证明，Heroku和MongoHQ更适合我们正在做的事情。
[/Edit]
[/编辑]
I have two consumer facing sites in beta running on Azure and been playing with it since earliest beta.
我有两个面向消费者的网站在Azure上运行，并且自最早的测试版以来一直在玩它。
The Pros:
优点：
- Azure is unbelievably stable. We did not have a single incident although we do process a lot of data.
- Azure非常稳定。尽管我们处理了大量数据，但我们没有发生过任何事件。
- The SDK is comprehensive, well documented and integrated into the IDE.
- SDK非常全面，文档齐全并集成到IDE中。
- Uptime exceeding the SLA
- 正常运行时间超过SLA
- Fast - Azure is really really fast on all aspects
- 快速 - Azure在所有方面都非常快
- Fits very well into the development workflow
- 非常适合开发工作流程
- Very committed employees and MVPs at Microsoft. You get help whenever you need it.
- 非常忠诚的员工和Microsoft的MVP。您可以随时获得帮助。
- We save tremendously on Admin costs. E.g. we don't need one ;-)
- 我们极大地节省了管理费用。例如。我们不需要一个;-)
- Easy to scale. This was the biggest selling point. No need for initial capex, and once we get that CNN interview we will just spin up a couple more roles for a day or two.
- 易于扩展。这是最大的卖点。不需要初始的资本支出，一旦我们接受了CNN的采访，我们将在一两天内完成更多的角色。
- Enterprise class, load balanced database system with SQL Azure. Porting code over is a matter of hours at most.
- 企业级，使用SQL Azure负载平衡数据库系统。移植代码最多只需几个小时。
The Cons:
缺点：
- No distributed cache - there are memcached solutions out there but it feels like a hack
- 没有分布式缓存 - 有memcached解决方案，但感觉就像一个黑客
- High initial costs when looking at it from a web app scenario (e.g. cost has an undue influence on your application architecture)
- 从Web应用程序场景中查看时的初始成本较高（例如，成本会对您的应用程序架构产生不当影响）
- Very high cost of the NoSQL and queue solution. There is a transaction fee involved that makes some scenarios very complicated to achieve.
- NoSQL和队列解决方案的成本非常高。涉及交易费用使得某些场景非常复杂。
- No realtime (or semi realtime) billing information through an API.
- 通过API无实时（或半实时）结算信息。
- The management interface is a disgrace to Microsoft.
- 管理界面是微软的耻辱。
- Microsoft is moving slowly / it takes them a long time to create new features.
- 微软正在缓慢发展/它需要很长时间来创建新功能。
- You are very much locked in as Azure is a PaaS vs Amazon (IaaS) provider. This will change once the VM Roles are available.
- 由于Azure是PaaS vs Amazon（IaaS）提供商，因此您非常关注。一旦VM角色可用，这将改变。
- It takes very long (~ 10 - 30 min) to spin up a new instance
- 启动新实例需要很长时间（~10 - 30分钟）
- Lack of Map/Reduce framework
- 缺乏Map / Reduce框架
Now some of the cons are serious right now but they should not prevent you from choosing the Azure platform as most of them will probably be resolved at PDC.
现在有些缺点很严重，但它们不应该阻止您选择Azure平台，因为大多数可能会在PDC解决。
I think that Azure works for all the scenarios you mentioned, maybe with the exception that due to the lack of distributed caching you will run into troubles at the very high end of web apps for now.
我认为Azure适用于您提到的所有场景，可能有一个例外，即由于缺乏分布式缓存，您现在会遇到Web应用程序最高端的问题。
I definitely trust Azure more than I trust my bank and a lot of incidents have proven me right over the last couple of years. In the end it comes down to that it is much easier for Microsoft to hire and concentrate top notch security people then non IT companies. And they have much more to lose.
我绝对信任Azure，而不是信任我的银行，而且很多事件在过去几年里证明了我的正确性。最后，它归结为微软更容易雇用和集中*安全人员，而不是非IT公司。他们还有更多的损失。
#3
2
After having sucked from the Azure kool aid firehose for the last couple of days, i can answer a couple of your points.
在过去几天从Azure kool援助firehose吸了之后，我可以回答你的几点。
Is it secure?
它安全吗？
Yes. It is physically secure, and data secure. The data you store on it is not placed on one drive, it is sprinkled across many. Your biggest risk is from a Disgruntled Ex-employee, which is toally within your control.
是。它物理安全，数据安全。您存储在其上的数据不会放在一个驱动器上，而是分散在许多驱动器上。您最大的风险来自心怀不满的前雇员，这完全在您的控制范围之内。
Is it right for you?
它适合你吗？
The answer to this is very open ended. Turn that question around - you are better off asking: Do you require any of the benefits of Azure? The answer to that question could be a lot clearer than its counterpart. There are some benefits to Azure (mainly based around scalability, maintainability, CDN style behaviour and removal of the cost of inhouse IT infrastructure), but it still has its limitations and is not suitable for all purposes and in some cases will give you no benefit at all.
答案是非常开放的。转过这个问题 - 你最好问：你需要Azure的任何好处吗？这个问题的答案可能会比同行更清楚。 Azure有一些好处（主要基于可扩展性，可维护性，CDN样式行为和内部IT基础架构成本的去除），但它仍有其局限性，不适合所有目的，在某些情况下不会给您带来任何好处一点都不
#4
2
Azure's main benefit is that it enables you to scale an application or service up or down as your needs dictate without having to invest in long-term costs such as hardware or staff to maintain the hardware.
Azure的主要优点是，它使您能够根据需要向上或向下扩展应用程序或服务，而无需投入硬件或人员等长期成本来维护硬件。
If you implement the same application using your own infrastructure, you have a lot of up front fixed costs regardless of how much value or utility you get out of the application. For example, you have to purchase, install, setup and maintain enough hardware to handle your anticipated peak load, even if your peak load occurs only once a day or once a month. What happens if you underestimate your peak load? Your service goes down until you can build out more hardware. What happens if you overestimate your peak load? You have unused hardware sitting around, which means you have spent money that isn't working for you.
如果使用自己的基础架构实现相同的应用程序，无论您从应用程序中获得多少价值或实用程序，都会有很多预先固定的成本。例如，您必须购买，安装，设置和维护足够的硬件来处理预期的峰值负载，即使您的峰值负载仅每天发生一次或每月发生一次。如果低估峰值负荷会怎样？您的服务会停止运行，直到您可以构建更多硬件。如果你高估你的峰值负荷怎么办？你有未使用的硬件，这意味着你花了不适合你的钱。
Yes, Azure can be used for B2C scenarios such as running a consumer-facing web site or service. B2C needs to be able to scale up quickly (in minutes or hours) to handle word of mouth viral uptake. Can you bring new server hardware on premises and have it up and running in half an hour? Probably not.
是的，Azure可用于B2C场景，例如运行面向消费者的网站或服务。 B2C需要能够迅速（几分钟或几小时）扩大规模以处理口碑病毒摄取。您是否可以在现场使用新的服务器硬件并在半小时内启动并运行？可能不会。
Yes, Azure can be used for B2B scenarios, such as running a service API for inventory or supply chain management. You can set up your Azure app as a self-sufficient island, or using the Service Bus you can tie it into your corporate network for back-end services.
是的，Azure可用于B2B方案，例如为库存或供应链管理运行服务API。您可以将Azure应用程序设置为自给自足的岛屿，或者使用服务总线，您可以将其绑定到企业网络以获得后端服务。
Azure is particularly useful for handling "surge" processing, such as performing data analysis on large data. Spool up several Azure instances to chew through the data, then shut them all down when you go home at the end of the day. You have the benefit of having hundreds or thousands of compute nodes available to you, but you only pay for them when you use them.
Azure对于处理“浪涌”处理特别有用，例如对大数据执行数据分析。假冒几个Azure实例来咀嚼数据，然后在一天结束时回家时关闭它们。您可以使用数百或数千个计算节点，但只有在使用它们时才需要付费。
Though I am always pushing for them to do more, I must credit the Azure platform team for not taking on too much at one time. Azure offers a fairly small menu of services right now (blob storage, table storage, queue service), but those services work well and scale well.
虽然我一直在努力让他们做得更多，但我必须相信Azure平台团队不会同时承担过多的费用。 Azure现在提供相当小的服务菜单（blob存储，表存储，队列服务），但这些服务运行良好并且可以很好地扩展。
Is Azure mature? In the sense that the services offered are fully baked and reliable, yes, I would say Azure is mature. If you mean mature in the sense that every possible service you could want is built-in, no, Azure is still growing the breadth of its service offerings.
Azure成熟了吗？从某种意义上说，所提供的服务是完全烘焙和可靠的，是的，我认为Azure已经成熟。如果你的意思是成熟，你可能想要的每一种可能的服务都是内置的，不，Azure仍在增加其服务产品的广度。
There are application and service scenarios that Azure probably isn't the best fit for right now. I don't know if the Azure data centers are suitable for real time financial market processing, for example. Azure is suitable for near real time data analysis and certainly end-of-day risk analysis. Azure doesn't implement automatic deployment and scale-up to handle dynamic loads or peak shaving - you can manage this manually or write your own instance manager using the service API. Azure's pricing structure is geared for business applications - it's overkill and not cost effective for hosting a personal web site or blog unless such a site has fairly high traffic and is a revenue generator.
Azure应用程序和服务方案现在可能不是最适合的。例如，我不知道Azure数据中心是否适合实时金融市场处理。 Azure适用于近实时数据分析，当然也适用于日终风险分析。 Azure不实现自动部署和扩展以处理动态加载或调峰 - 您可以手动管理或使用服务API编写自己的实例管理器。 Azure的定价结构适用于商业应用程序 - 托管个人网站或博客的成本过高且不具成本效益，除非这样的网站拥有相当高的流量并且是收入来源。
Disclosure: I am a Microsoft employee and I work on tools for Windows Azure.
披露：我是Microsoft员工，我从事Windows Azure工具。
#5
1
For me, it's largely a cost-benefit analysis. Determine how much it will cost you to support all the infrastructure internally vs. Azure.
对我来说，这主要是成本效益分析。确定在内部与Azure支持所有基础架构所需的成本。
Security, obviously, is the biggest sticking point.
显然，安全性是最大的问题。
I can't speak to the security personally, as I have not had to be overly concerned with it, but here's a couple resources about azure security I found.
我不能亲自与安全人员交谈，因为我不必过分关注它，但这里有一些关于我发现的天蓝色安全性的资源。
http://azuresecurity.codeplex.com
http://azuresecurity.codeplex.com
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-Azure-Security-Cloud.html
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-Azure-Security-Cloud.html
#6
0
The question rests on false premises. Projects do not need to move to the cloud at all. What the cloud offers, as mentioned by previous answerers, is a platform for new ideas that is not limited by scalability. The key benefit of cloud is that all main growth related costs are opex, whereas traditional 'projects' need capex to grow, and are thus based on a pre-crisis financial VC-style growth model.
问题在于虚假的前提。项目根本不需要迁移到云端。正如之前的回答者所提到的，云提供的是一个不受可扩展性限制的新想法平台。云的主要好处是所有与增长相关的主要成本都是运营成本，而传统的“项目”需要资本支出增长，因此基于危机前的金融风险投资式增长模式。
The point is that when new ideas do appear, and if they become popular, and if they are hosted on the cloud, they can grow without restriction (as long as their cost model always guarantees that cost per transaction is less than or equal to revenue per transaction), and the result will be that these 'projects' become irrelevant.
关键在于，当新想法出现时，如果它们变得流行，并且如果它们在云上托管，它们可以不受限制地增长（只要它们的成本模型始终保证每笔交易的成本小于或等于收入每笔交易），结果将是这些“项目”变得无关紧要。
For example, while MS bought Skype for x billion, it will be possible for programmers to create a populare cloud hosted Skype client and achieve what Skype did with no capex or need for VC/financier growth (theoretically).
例如，当MS以10亿美元购买Skype时，程序员可以创建一个普及的云托管Skype客户端，并实现Skype所做的没有资本支出或需要VC /融资增长（理论上）。
The question should be, therefore, not 'what is the benefit of the cloud' but really 'what business model makes sense, once it is accepted that a cloud hosted one will likely eventually appear'
因此，问题应该不是“云的好处是什么”，而是“一旦接受云托管的云可能最终会出现”，那么“真正的商业模式才有意义”
#1
7
One of the best scenarios for Azure is an application for which you are hoping for viral growth. Yes, it is almost foolish to have such expectations, but there are a certain class of applications -- notably "social" applications -- that are only going to live if they experience viral growth.
Azure的最佳方案之一是您希望病毒式增长的应用程序。是的，拥有这样的期望几乎是愚蠢的，但是有一类应用程序 - 特别是“社交”应用程序 - 只有在它们经历病毒式增长时才能生存。
It is extremely difficult to plan your own infrastructure in such a way that it can adapt to that kind of growth without having extended outage periods or at least loyalty-threatening slowdowns. You're always going to be behind, reacting to resource shortages unless you are constantly over-supplying for expected need in which case you are potentially using your capital poorly and shortening your runway.
规划自己的基础设施是非常困难的，因为它可以适应这种增长，而不会延长停电时间或至少降低忠诚度的速度。你总是会落后，对资源短缺作出反应，除非你经常过度供应预期的需求，在这种情况下，你可能会使用你的资金，缩短你的跑道。
Azure addresses those problems neatly. You can add resources as you need them. You can respond to usage spikes on a few minutes notice, adding new resources through the Azure management console.
Azure巧妙地解决了这些问题。您可以根据需要添加资源。您可以在几分钟后响应使用高峰，通过Azure管理控制台添加新资源。
I think that there are many other scenarios for which Azure is an excellent match, but the one that I have described is a fairly compelling case, I think.
我认为还有很多其他场景，Azure是一个很好的匹配，但我认为，我所描述的是一个相当引人注目的案例。
#2
8
[Edit]
[编辑]
Just discovered this 10 month old post of mine. Well, things change. We went from Microsoft to Ruby, Coffeescript, Node.js and a bit of Scala and never regretted it. Heroku and MongoHQ proved to be much better fit for what we are doing.
刚发现我这个10个月大的帖子。事情变了。我们从微软转到Ruby，Coffeescript，Node.js和一些Scala，从不后悔。事实证明，Heroku和MongoHQ更适合我们正在做的事情。
[/Edit]
[/编辑]
I have two consumer facing sites in beta running on Azure and been playing with it since earliest beta.
我有两个面向消费者的网站在Azure上运行，并且自最早的测试版以来一直在玩它。
The Pros:
优点：
- Azure is unbelievably stable. We did not have a single incident although we do process a lot of data.
- Azure非常稳定。尽管我们处理了大量数据，但我们没有发生过任何事件。
- The SDK is comprehensive, well documented and integrated into the IDE.
- SDK非常全面，文档齐全并集成到IDE中。
- Uptime exceeding the SLA
- 正常运行时间超过SLA
- Fast - Azure is really really fast on all aspects
- 快速 - Azure在所有方面都非常快
- Fits very well into the development workflow
- 非常适合开发工作流程
- Very committed employees and MVPs at Microsoft. You get help whenever you need it.
- 非常忠诚的员工和Microsoft的MVP。您可以随时获得帮助。
- We save tremendously on Admin costs. E.g. we don't need one ;-)
- 我们极大地节省了管理费用。例如。我们不需要一个;-)
- Easy to scale. This was the biggest selling point. No need for initial capex, and once we get that CNN interview we will just spin up a couple more roles for a day or two.
- 易于扩展。这是最大的卖点。不需要初始的资本支出，一旦我们接受了CNN的采访，我们将在一两天内完成更多的角色。
- Enterprise class, load balanced database system with SQL Azure. Porting code over is a matter of hours at most.
- 企业级，使用SQL Azure负载平衡数据库系统。移植代码最多只需几个小时。
The Cons:
缺点：
- No distributed cache - there are memcached solutions out there but it feels like a hack
- 没有分布式缓存 - 有memcached解决方案，但感觉就像一个黑客
- High initial costs when looking at it from a web app scenario (e.g. cost has an undue influence on your application architecture)
- 从Web应用程序场景中查看时的初始成本较高（例如，成本会对您的应用程序架构产生不当影响）
- Very high cost of the NoSQL and queue solution. There is a transaction fee involved that makes some scenarios very complicated to achieve.
- NoSQL和队列解决方案的成本非常高。涉及交易费用使得某些场景非常复杂。
- No realtime (or semi realtime) billing information through an API.
- 通过API无实时（或半实时）结算信息。
- The management interface is a disgrace to Microsoft.
- 管理界面是微软的耻辱。
- Microsoft is moving slowly / it takes them a long time to create new features.
- 微软正在缓慢发展/它需要很长时间来创建新功能。
- You are very much locked in as Azure is a PaaS vs Amazon (IaaS) provider. This will change once the VM Roles are available.
- 由于Azure是PaaS vs Amazon（IaaS）提供商，因此您非常关注。一旦VM角色可用，这将改变。
- It takes very long (~ 10 - 30 min) to spin up a new instance
- 启动新实例需要很长时间（~10 - 30分钟）
- Lack of Map/Reduce framework
- 缺乏Map / Reduce框架
Now some of the cons are serious right now but they should not prevent you from choosing the Azure platform as most of them will probably be resolved at PDC.
现在有些缺点很严重，但它们不应该阻止您选择Azure平台，因为大多数可能会在PDC解决。
I think that Azure works for all the scenarios you mentioned, maybe with the exception that due to the lack of distributed caching you will run into troubles at the very high end of web apps for now.
我认为Azure适用于您提到的所有场景，可能有一个例外，即由于缺乏分布式缓存，您现在会遇到Web应用程序最高端的问题。
I definitely trust Azure more than I trust my bank and a lot of incidents have proven me right over the last couple of years. In the end it comes down to that it is much easier for Microsoft to hire and concentrate top notch security people then non IT companies. And they have much more to lose.
我绝对信任Azure，而不是信任我的银行，而且很多事件在过去几年里证明了我的正确性。最后，它归结为微软更容易雇用和集中*安全人员，而不是非IT公司。他们还有更多的损失。
#3
2
After having sucked from the Azure kool aid firehose for the last couple of days, i can answer a couple of your points.
在过去几天从Azure kool援助firehose吸了之后，我可以回答你的几点。
Is it secure?
它安全吗？
Yes. It is physically secure, and data secure. The data you store on it is not placed on one drive, it is sprinkled across many. Your biggest risk is from a Disgruntled Ex-employee, which is toally within your control.
是。它物理安全，数据安全。您存储在其上的数据不会放在一个驱动器上，而是分散在许多驱动器上。您最大的风险来自心怀不满的前雇员，这完全在您的控制范围之内。
Is it right for you?
它适合你吗？
The answer to this is very open ended. Turn that question around - you are better off asking: Do you require any of the benefits of Azure? The answer to that question could be a lot clearer than its counterpart. There are some benefits to Azure (mainly based around scalability, maintainability, CDN style behaviour and removal of the cost of inhouse IT infrastructure), but it still has its limitations and is not suitable for all purposes and in some cases will give you no benefit at all.
答案是非常开放的。转过这个问题 - 你最好问：你需要Azure的任何好处吗？这个问题的答案可能会比同行更清楚。 Azure有一些好处（主要基于可扩展性，可维护性，CDN样式行为和内部IT基础架构成本的去除），但它仍有其局限性，不适合所有目的，在某些情况下不会给您带来任何好处一点都不
#4
2
Azure's main benefit is that it enables you to scale an application or service up or down as your needs dictate without having to invest in long-term costs such as hardware or staff to maintain the hardware.
Azure的主要优点是，它使您能够根据需要向上或向下扩展应用程序或服务，而无需投入硬件或人员等长期成本来维护硬件。
If you implement the same application using your own infrastructure, you have a lot of up front fixed costs regardless of how much value or utility you get out of the application. For example, you have to purchase, install, setup and maintain enough hardware to handle your anticipated peak load, even if your peak load occurs only once a day or once a month. What happens if you underestimate your peak load? Your service goes down until you can build out more hardware. What happens if you overestimate your peak load? You have unused hardware sitting around, which means you have spent money that isn't working for you.
如果使用自己的基础架构实现相同的应用程序，无论您从应用程序中获得多少价值或实用程序，都会有很多预先固定的成本。例如，您必须购买，安装，设置和维护足够的硬件来处理预期的峰值负载，即使您的峰值负载仅每天发生一次或每月发生一次。如果低估峰值负荷会怎样？您的服务会停止运行，直到您可以构建更多硬件。如果你高估你的峰值负荷怎么办？你有未使用的硬件，这意味着你花了不适合你的钱。
Yes, Azure can be used for B2C scenarios such as running a consumer-facing web site or service. B2C needs to be able to scale up quickly (in minutes or hours) to handle word of mouth viral uptake. Can you bring new server hardware on premises and have it up and running in half an hour? Probably not.
是的，Azure可用于B2C场景，例如运行面向消费者的网站或服务。 B2C需要能够迅速（几分钟或几小时）扩大规模以处理口碑病毒摄取。您是否可以在现场使用新的服务器硬件并在半小时内启动并运行？可能不会。
Yes, Azure can be used for B2B scenarios, such as running a service API for inventory or supply chain management. You can set up your Azure app as a self-sufficient island, or using the Service Bus you can tie it into your corporate network for back-end services.
是的，Azure可用于B2B方案，例如为库存或供应链管理运行服务API。您可以将Azure应用程序设置为自给自足的岛屿，或者使用服务总线，您可以将其绑定到企业网络以获得后端服务。
Azure is particularly useful for handling "surge" processing, such as performing data analysis on large data. Spool up several Azure instances to chew through the data, then shut them all down when you go home at the end of the day. You have the benefit of having hundreds or thousands of compute nodes available to you, but you only pay for them when you use them.
Azure对于处理“浪涌”处理特别有用，例如对大数据执行数据分析。假冒几个Azure实例来咀嚼数据，然后在一天结束时回家时关闭它们。您可以使用数百或数千个计算节点，但只有在使用它们时才需要付费。
Though I am always pushing for them to do more, I must credit the Azure platform team for not taking on too much at one time. Azure offers a fairly small menu of services right now (blob storage, table storage, queue service), but those services work well and scale well.
虽然我一直在努力让他们做得更多，但我必须相信Azure平台团队不会同时承担过多的费用。 Azure现在提供相当小的服务菜单（blob存储，表存储，队列服务），但这些服务运行良好并且可以很好地扩展。
Is Azure mature? In the sense that the services offered are fully baked and reliable, yes, I would say Azure is mature. If you mean mature in the sense that every possible service you could want is built-in, no, Azure is still growing the breadth of its service offerings.
Azure成熟了吗？从某种意义上说，所提供的服务是完全烘焙和可靠的，是的，我认为Azure已经成熟。如果你的意思是成熟，你可能想要的每一种可能的服务都是内置的，不，Azure仍在增加其服务产品的广度。
There are application and service scenarios that Azure probably isn't the best fit for right now. I don't know if the Azure data centers are suitable for real time financial market processing, for example. Azure is suitable for near real time data analysis and certainly end-of-day risk analysis. Azure doesn't implement automatic deployment and scale-up to handle dynamic loads or peak shaving - you can manage this manually or write your own instance manager using the service API. Azure's pricing structure is geared for business applications - it's overkill and not cost effective for hosting a personal web site or blog unless such a site has fairly high traffic and is a revenue generator.
Azure应用程序和服务方案现在可能不是最适合的。例如，我不知道Azure数据中心是否适合实时金融市场处理。 Azure适用于近实时数据分析，当然也适用于日终风险分析。 Azure不实现自动部署和扩展以处理动态加载或调峰 - 您可以手动管理或使用服务API编写自己的实例管理器。 Azure的定价结构适用于商业应用程序 - 托管个人网站或博客的成本过高且不具成本效益，除非这样的网站拥有相当高的流量并且是收入来源。
Disclosure: I am a Microsoft employee and I work on tools for Windows Azure.
披露：我是Microsoft员工，我从事Windows Azure工具。
#5
1
For me, it's largely a cost-benefit analysis. Determine how much it will cost you to support all the infrastructure internally vs. Azure.
对我来说，这主要是成本效益分析。确定在内部与Azure支持所有基础架构所需的成本。
Security, obviously, is the biggest sticking point.
显然，安全性是最大的问题。
I can't speak to the security personally, as I have not had to be overly concerned with it, but here's a couple resources about azure security I found.
我不能亲自与安全人员交谈，因为我不必过分关注它，但这里有一些关于我发现的天蓝色安全性的资源。
http://azuresecurity.codeplex.com
http://azuresecurity.codeplex.com
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-Azure-Security-Cloud.html
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-Azure-Security-Cloud.html
#6
0
The question rests on false premises. Projects do not need to move to the cloud at all. What the cloud offers, as mentioned by previous answerers, is a platform for new ideas that is not limited by scalability. The key benefit of cloud is that all main growth related costs are opex, whereas traditional 'projects' need capex to grow, and are thus based on a pre-crisis financial VC-style growth model.
问题在于虚假的前提。项目根本不需要迁移到云端。正如之前的回答者所提到的，云提供的是一个不受可扩展性限制的新想法平台。云的主要好处是所有与增长相关的主要成本都是运营成本，而传统的“项目”需要资本支出增长，因此基于危机前的金融风险投资式增长模式。
The point is that when new ideas do appear, and if they become popular, and if they are hosted on the cloud, they can grow without restriction (as long as their cost model always guarantees that cost per transaction is less than or equal to revenue per transaction), and the result will be that these 'projects' become irrelevant.
关键在于，当新想法出现时，如果它们变得流行，并且如果它们在云上托管，它们可以不受限制地增长（只要它们的成本模型始终保证每笔交易的成本小于或等于收入每笔交易），结果将是这些“项目”变得无关紧要。
For example, while MS bought Skype for x billion, it will be possible for programmers to create a populare cloud hosted Skype client and achieve what Skype did with no capex or need for VC/financier growth (theoretically).
例如，当MS以10亿美元购买Skype时，程序员可以创建一个普及的云托管Skype客户端，并实现Skype所做的没有资本支出或需要VC /融资增长（理论上）。
The question should be, therefore, not 'what is the benefit of the cloud' but really 'what business model makes sense, once it is accepted that a cloud hosted one will likely eventually appear'
因此，问题应该不是“云的好处是什么”，而是“一旦接受云托管的云可能最终会出现”，那么“真正的商业模式才有意义”