Category: Azure

Azure Data Factory – Mapping Bug

This is something to be aware of as its effects can be very very subtle.

As part of a project for a client I have an Azure Data Factory that picks up data from various sources and moves it into a reporting database. Their are various types of copy operation going on but a common one is to take a data source and execute it via a stored procedure passing it in as a table parameter. You set up column mappings from the source to the target. I had this table type defined for a parameter to my ingestion stored procedure:

create type SessionType as table(
    [Id]                uniqueidentifier not null primary key nonclustered,
    [ProgrammeId]       UNIQUEIDENTIFIER not null,
    [StartDateTimeUtc]  datetime2        not null,
    [VolunteerId]       uniqueidentifier not null,
    [SessionCancelled]  bit              not null,
    [LastModified]      binary(8)        not null,
    [VolunteerRating]   int              null,
    [VolunteerComments] nvarchar(1025)   null
)

And a mapping set up from the source to this table as follows:

My ingestion procedure ran ok (it does a merge) but I was getting weird downstream results: data didn’t seem to be correlating as we expected. On back and forthing between the data sources I realised that the VolunteerId and the ProgrammeId were switched – the target VolunteerId was getting the source ReadingProgrammeId and the target ProgrammeId was getting the source VolunteerId.

I’d edited this so wandered if their was some weird caching going on or if the publish hadn’t really published so I made a change to try and force things – plus I’d run out of ideas. I couldn’t see a thing wrong with any of the SQL. I removed the two mappings and added them at the end:

On rerunning my data factory I found I now got an error. An issue trying to insert a datetime2 type into a uniqueidentifier column. The penny dropped. Despite the GUI, despite the tooling, despite the ARM definition the data factory is not using the column names – its merrily ignoring them and using order of the columns in the schema table type definition for targets.

I verified this by setting up a mapping based on the order of columns in the table type:

That fixed things and my downstream systems can now make sense of the data.

Hopefully they’ll get this fixed as unless you get a type clash its pretty dangerous.

Writing and Testing Azure Functions with Function Monkey – Part 3

Part 3 of my series on writing Azure Functions with Function Monkey focuses on writing tests using the newly released testing package – while this is by no means required it does make writing high value acceptance tests that use your applications full runtime easy and quick.

Lessons Learned

It really is amazing how quickly time passes when you’re talking and coding – I really hadn’t realised I’d recorded over an hours footage until I came to edit the video. I thought about splitting it in two but the contents really belonged together so I’ve left it as is.

Bike Reminders – A breakdown of a real Azure application (Part 1)

I’ve been meaning to write about a real cloud based project for some time but the criteria a good candidate project needs to fit are challenging:

  • Significant enough to illustrate numerous design and implementation decisions
  • Not so large that the time investment for a reader to get into it is prohibitive
  • I need to own, or have free access to, the intellectual property
  • It needs to be something I want, or am contracted, to build for reasons beyond writing about it

To expand upon that last point a little – I don’t have the time to build something just for a series of blog posts and if I did I suspect it would be too artificial and essentially would end up a strawman.

The real world and real development is constrained messy, you come across things that you can’t economically solve in an ivory towered fashion. You can’t always predict everything in advance, you get things wrong and don’t always have the time available to start again and so have to do the best that you can with what you have.

In the case of this project I hadn’t really thought about it as a candidate for writing about until I neared the end of building the MVP and so it comes, rather handily, with warts and all. For sure I’ve refactored things but no more than you’d expect to on any time and budget constrained project.

My intention is, over the course of a series of posts, to explore this application in an end to end fashion: the requirements, the architecture, the code, testing, deployment – pretty much its end to end lifecycle. Hopefully this will contain useful nuggets of information that can be applied on other projects and help those new to Azure get up and running.

About the project

So what does the project do?

If you’re a keen cyclist you’ll know that you need to check various components on your bike at regular intervals. You’ll also know that some of the components last just long enough that you’ll forget about them – my personal nemesis is chain wear, more than once I’ve taken that to the point where it is likely to start damaging the rear cassette having completely forgotten about it.

I’m fortunate enough to have a rather nice bike and so there is nothing cheap about replacing anything so really not a mistake you want to be making. Many bikes also now contain components that need charging – Di2 and eTap are increasingly common and though I’ve yet to get caught out on a ride I’ve definitely run it closer than I realised.

After the last time I made this mistake I decided to do something about it and thus was born Bike Reminders: a website that links up with Strava to send you reminders as you accrue mileage on each of your bikes. While not a substitute for regularly checking your bike I’m hopeful it will at least give me a prod over chain wear! I contemplated going direct to Garmin but they seem to want circa $5000 for API access and thats a lot of component damage before I break even – ouch.

In terms of an MVP that distilled out into a handful of high level requirements:

  • Authenticate with Strava
  • Access a users bikes in Strava
  • Allow a mileage based maintenance schedule to be set up against a bike
  • Allow email reminders to be dismissed / reset
  • Allow email reminders to be snoozed
  • Update the progress towards each reminder based on rider activity in Strava

There were also some requirements I wanted to keep in mind for the future:

  • Time based reminders
  • “First ride of the week” type reminders
  • Allow reminders to be sent via push notifications
  • Predictive information – based on a riders history when is a reminder likely to be triggered, this is useful if you’re going away on a training camp for example and want to get maintenance done before you go

Setting off on the project I set a number of overarching goals / none functional requirements for it:

  • Keep it small enough that it could be built alongside a two (expanded to three!) week cycling training block in Mallorca
  • To have a very low cost to run both in terms of minimum footprint (cost to run 1 user) and per user cost as the system scales up
  • To require little to no maintenance and a fully automated delivery mechanism
  • To support multiple client types (initially web but to be followed up with a Flutter app)
  • Keep personal data out of it as far as possible
  • As far as possible spin out any work that isn’t specific to the problem domain as open source (I’m fairly likely to reuse it myself if nothing else)

And although I try not to jump ahead of myself that mapped nicely onto using Azure as a cloud provider with Azure Functions for compute and Azure DevOps and Application Insights for the operational side of things.

Architecture

The next step was to figure out what I’d need to build – initially I worked this through on a “mental beermat” while out cycling but I like to use the C4 Model to describe software systems. It gives a basic structure and just enough tools to think about and describe systems at different levels of architecture without disappearing up its own backside in complexity and becoming an end in and of itself.

System Context

For this fairly simple and greenfield system establishing the big picture was fairly straight forward. It’s initially going to comprise of a website accessed by cyclists with their Strava logins, connecting to Strava for tracking mileage, and sending emails for which I chose SendGrid due to existing familiarity with it.

Containers

Breaking this down into more detail forced me to start making some additional decisions. If I was going to build an interactive website / app I’d need some kind of API for which I decided to use Azure Functions. I’ve done a lot of work with them, have a pretty good library for building REST APIs with them (Function Monkey) and they come with a generous free usage allowance which would help me meet my low cost to operate criterion. The event based programming model would also lend itself to handling things like processing queues which is how I envisaged sending emails (hence a message broker – the Azure Service Bus).

For storage I wanted something simple – although at an early stage it seemed to me that I’d be able to store all the key details about cyclists, their bikes and reminders in a JSON document keyed off the cyclists ID. And if something more complex emerged I reasoned it would be easy to convert this kind of format into another. Again cost was a factor and as I couldn’t see, based on my simple requirements, any need for complex queries I decided to at least start with plain old Azure Storage Blob Containers and a filename based on the ID. This would have the advantage of being really simple and really cheap!

The user interface was a simple decision: I’ve done a lot of work with React and I saw no reason it wouldn’t work for this project. Over the last few months I’ve been experimenting with TypeScript and I’ve found it of help with the maintainability of JavaScript projects and so decided to use that from the start on this project.

Finally I needed to figure out how I’d most likely interact with the Strava API to track changes in mileage. They do have a push API that is available by email request but I wanted to start quickly (and this was Christmas and I had no idea how soon I’d hear back from them) and I’d probably have to do some buffering around the ingestion – when you upload a route its not necessarily associated with the right bike (for example my Zwift rides always end up on my main road bike, not my turbo trainer mounted bike) to prevent confusing short term adjustments.

So to begin with I decided to poll Strava once a day for updates which would require some form of scheduling. While I wasn’t expecting huge amounts of overnight for the website Strava do rate limit APIs and so I couldn’t use a timer function with Azure as that would run the risk of overloading the API quite easily. Instead I figured I could use enqueue visibility on the Service Bus and spread out athletes so that the API would never be overloaded. I’ve faced a similar issue before and so I figured this might also make for a useful piece of open source (it did).

All this is summarised in the diagram below:

Azure Topology

Mapped (largely) onto Azure I expected the system to look something like the below:

The notable exception is the introduction of Netlify for my static site hosting. While you can host static sites on Azure it is inelegant at best (and the Azure Storage SPA support is useless as you can’t use SSL and a custom domain) and so a few months back I went searching for an alternative and came across Netlify. It makes building, deploying and hosting sites ridiculously easy and so I’ve been gradually switching my work over to here.

I also, currently, don’t have API Management in front of the Azure Functions that present the REST API – the provisioned approach is simply too expensive for this system at the moment and the consumption model, at least at the time of writing, has a horrific cold start time. I do plan to revisit this.

Next Steps

In the next part we’ll break out the code and begin by taking a look at how I structured the Azure Function app.

SPA Hosting on Azure / Can We Have More Boring Stuff Please

Microsoft announced the long awaited SPA hosting support for Azure yesterday. Before rushing in and adopting it make sure to read the small print – there is no support for custom domain names and SSL. Which given SSL is becoming almost mandatory (and about to become super-prominent as a warning in Chrome) makes it pretty useless for public facing websites in 2018.

Its based on Azure Storage which has outstanding user voice requests from 2012 asking for SSL support with custom domains so it may also not be something that appears soon. I would love to be wrong on that.

The options for resolving it are much like they were before this feature was introduced: proxies of one form or another (CDN, Functions, CloudFlare etc.).

If you’re happy with an Azure storage based domain name, so probably working on an internal facing system I guess, it may still work for you.

As someone who does a lot of work with SPAs I must admit I’m really disappointed in this – it seems pretty ridiculous to me that in 2018 amidst all the “big” Azure announcements (machine learning on the edge, globally distributed planet scale data etc.) that hosting  a single page app, essentially static files, cheaply and easily is still awkward on the platform and requires multiple services to deliver.

I’d love to see the Azure teams really focus on, and really finish, some of the “boring stuff” like this – it might not get marketing column inches, and might not make for a snazzy new “you can do this in 5 minutes” video to impress purchasing CTOs but it would save time and effort amongst hundreds of thousands of engineers and development shops and would deliver real value to those people. I’m often reminded of the Saving Lives story that Andy Hertzfeld tells.

Using ReactJS with Azure AD B2C

Azure AD B2C is Microsoft’s identity provider for social and enterprise logins allowing you to, for example, unify the login process across Twitter, Facebook, and Azure AD / Office 365. It comes with a generous free tier and following that pricing is reasonable particularly compared to the pricing for “enterprise” logins with some of the competition.

However the downside is the documentation for B2C and integration with specific technologies isn’t that clear – there’s nothing particularly strange about B2C, ultimately its just an OpenID Connect identity provider, but there is some nuance in it.

In parallel Microsoft provide MSAL (MicroSoft Authentication Library) for handling authentication from JavaScript clients and here documentation is clearer but still a little incomplete and it can be difficult to figure out the implementation required for a particular scenario – not helped by the library reference having no content other than to repeat method definitions.

I’m currently working with a handful of projects based around React JS, Azure AD B2C, and a combination of ASP.Net Core MVC and Azure Functions and found myself grappling with this. What I was doing seemed eminently reusable (and I hope useful) and so I set some time aside to take what I’d learned and create a B2C specific npm package – react-azure-adb2c.

To install it if you’re using npm:

npm install react-azure-adb2c --save

Or if you’re using yarn:

yarn add react-azure-adb2c

Before continuing you’ll need to set up Azure AD B2C for API access and the three tutorials here are a reasonably easy to follow guide on how to do that. At the end of that process you should have a tenant name, a sign in and/or up policy, an application ID, and one or more scopes.

The first change to make in your app to use the package is to initialize it with your B2C details:

import authentication from 'react-azure-adb2c';

authentication.initialize({
    // your B2C tenant
    tenant: 'myb2ctenant.onmicrosoft.com',
    // the policy to use to sign in, can also be a sign up or sign in policy
    signInPolicy: 'mysigninpolicy',
    // the the B2C application you want to authenticate with
    applicationId: '75ee2b43-ad2c-4366-9b8f-84b7d19d776e',
    // where MSAL will store state - localStorage or sessionStorage
    cacheLocation: 'sessionStorage',
    // the scopes you want included in the access token
    scopes: ['https://myb2ctenant.onmicrosoft.com/management/admin'],
    // optional, the URI to redirect to after logout
    postLogoutRedirectUri: 'http://myapp.com'
});

There are then two main ways you can use the library. You can either protect the entire application (for example if you have a React app that is launched from another landing area) or specific components. To protect the entire application simply wrap the app startup code in index.js as shown below:

authentication.run(() => {
  ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.getElementById('root'));
  registerServiceWorker();  
});

To require authentication for specific components the react-azure-adb2c library provides a function that will wrap a component in a higher order component as shown in the example below:

import React, { Component } from 'react';
import authentication from 'react-azure-adb2c'
import { BrowserRouter as Router, Route, Switch } from "react-router-dom";
import HomePage from './Homepage'
import MembersArea from './MembersArea'

class App extends Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <Router basename={process.env.PUBLIC_URL}>
        <Switch>
          <Route exact path="/" component={HomePage} />
          <Route exact path="/membersArea" component={authentication.required(MembersArea)}>
        </Switch>
      </Router>
    );
  }
}

And finally to get the access token to use with API calls:

import authentication from 'react-azure-adb2c'

// ...

const token = authentication.getAccessToken();

If you find any issues please let me know over on GitHub.

Hopefully that’s useful and takes some of the pain out of using ReactJS with Azure AD B2C and as ever I can be reached on Twitter for discussion.

 

 

Azure Functions – Microsoft Feedback on HTTP Trigger Scaling

Since I published this piece Microsoft have made significant improvements to HTTP scaling on Azure Functions and the below is out of date. Please see this post for a revised comparison.

Following the analysis I published on Azure Functions and the latency in scaling HTTP triggered functions the Microsoft development team got in touch to discuss my findings and provide some information about the future which they were happy for me to share.

Essentially the team are already at work making improvements in this area. Understandably they were unable to commit to timescales or make specific claims as to how significant those improvements but my sense is we’re looking at a handful of months and so, hopefully, half one of this year. They are going to get in touch with me once something is available and I’ll rerun my tests.

I must admit I’m slightly sceptical as to if they’ll be able to match the scaling capability of AWS Lambda (and to be clear they did not make any such claim), which is what I’d like to see, as that looks to me as if it would require a radical uprooting of the Functions runtime model rather than an evolution but ultimately I’m just a random, slightly informed, punter. Hopefully they can at least get close enough that Azure Functions can be used in more latency critical and spiky scenarios.

I’d like to thank @jeffhollan and the team for the call – as a predominantly Azure and .NET developer it’s both helpful and encouraging to be able to have these kinds of dialogues around the platform so critical to our success.

In the interim I’m still finding I can use HTTP functions – I just have to be mindful of their current limitations – and have some upcoming blog posts on patterns that make use of them.

Azure Functions – Scaling with a Dedicated App Service Plan

Since I published this piece Microsoft have made significant improvements to HTTP scaling on Azure Functions. I’ve not yet had the opportunity to test performance on dedicated app service plans but please see this post for a revised comparison on the Consumption Plan.

After my last few posts on the scaling of Azure Functions I was intrigued to see if they would perform any better running on a dedicated App Service Plan. Hosting them in this way allows for the functions to take full advantage of App Service features but, to my mind, is no long a serverless approach as rather than being billed based on usage you are essentially renting servers and are fully responsible for scaling.

I conducted a single test scenario: an immediate load of 400 concurrent users running for 5 minutes against the “stock” JavaScript function (no external dependencies, just returns a string) on 4 configurations:

  1. Consumption Plan – billed based on usage – approximately $130 per month
    (based on running constantly at the tested throughput that is around 648 million functions per month)
  2. Dedicated App Service Plan with 1 x S1 server -$73.20 per month
  3. Dedicated App Service Plan with 2 x S1 server – $146.40 per month
  4. Dedicated App Service Plan with 4 x S1 server – $292.80 per month

I also included AWS Lambda as a reference point.

The results were certainly interesting:

With immediately available resource all 3 App Service Plan configurations begin with response times slightly ahead of the Consumption Plan but at around the 1 minute mark the Consumption Plan overtakes our single instance configuration and at 2 minutes creeps ahead of the double instance configuration and, while the advantage is slight, at 3 minutes begins to consistently outperform our 4 instance configuration. However AWS Lambda remains some way out in front.

From a throughput perspective the story is largely the same with the Consumption Plan taking time to scale up and address the demand but ultimately proving more capable than even the 4x S1 instance configuration and knocking on the door of AWS Lambda. What I did find particularly notable is the low impact of moving from 2 to 4 instances on throughput – the improvement in throughput is massively disappointing – for incurring twice the cost we are barely getting 50% more throughput. I have insufficient data to understand why this is happening but do have some tests in mind that, time allowing, I will run and see if I can provide further information.

At this kind of load (650 million requests per month) from a bang per buck point of view Azure Functions on the Consumption Plan come out strongly compared to App Service instances even if we don’t allowing for quiet periods when Functions would incur less cost. If your scale profile falls within the capabilities of the service it’s worth considering though it’s worth remembering their isn’t really an SLA around Functions at the moment when running on the Consumption Plan (and to be fair the same applies to AWS Lambda).

If you don’t want to take advantage of any of the additional features that come with a dedicated App Service plan and although they can be provisioned to avoid the slow ramp up of the Consumption Plan are expensive in comparison.

Azure Functions vs AWS Lambda vs Google Cloud Functions – JavaScript Scaling Face Off

Since I published this piece Microsoft have made significant improvements to HTTP scaling on Azure Functions and the below is out of date. Please see this post for a revised comparison.

I had a lot of interesting conversations and feedback following my recent post on scaling a serverless .NET application with Azure Functions and AWS Lambda. A common request was to also include Google Cloud Functions and a common comment was that the runtimes were not the same: .NET Core on AWS Lambda and .NET 4.6 on Azure Functions. In regard to the latter point I certainly agree this is not ideal but continue to contend that as these are your options for .NET and are fully supported and stated as scalable serverless runtimes by each vendor its worth understanding and comparing these platforms as that is your choice as a .NET developer. I’m also fairly sure that although the different runtimes might make a difference to outright raw response time, and therefore throughput and the ultimate amount of resource required, the scaling issues with Azure had less to do with the runtime and more to do with the surrounding serverless implementation.

Do I think a .NET Core function in a well architected serverless host will outperform a .NET Framework based function in a well architected serverless host? Yes. Do I think .NET Framework is the root cause of the scaling issues on Azure? No. In my view AWS Lambda currently has a superior way of managing HTTP triggered functions when compared to Azure and Azure is hampered by a model based around App Service plans.

Taking all that on board and wanting to better evidence or refute my belief that the scaling issues are more host than framework related I’ve rewritten the test subject as a tiny Node / JavaScript application and retested the platforms on this runtime – Node is supported by all three platforms and all three platforms are currently running Node JS 6.x.

My primary test continues to be a mixed light workload of CPU and IO (load three blobs from the vendors storage offering and then compile and run a handlebars template), the kind of workload its fairly typical to find in a HTTP function / public facing API. However I’ve also run some tests against “stock” functions – the vendor samples that simply return strings. Finally I’ve also included some percentile based data which I obtained using Apache Benchmark and I’ve covered off cold start scenarios.

I’ve also managed to normalise the axes this time round for a clearer comparison and the code and data can all be found on GitHub:

https://github.com/JamesRandall/serverlessJsScalingComparison

(In the last week AWS have also added full support for .NET Core 2.0 on Lambda – expect some data on that soon)

Gradual Ramp Up

This test case starts with 1 user and adds 2 users per second up to a maximum of 500 concurrent users to demonstrate a slow and steady increase in load.

The AWS and Azure results for JavaScript are very similar to those seen for .NET with Azure again struggling with response times and never really competing with AWS when under load. Both AWS and Azure exhibit faster response times when using JavaScript than .NET.

Google Cloud Functions run fairly close to AWS Lambda but can’t quite match it for response time and fall behinds on overall throughput where it sits closer to Azure’s results. Given the difference in response time this would suggest Azure is processing more concurrent incoming requests than Google allowing it to have a similar throughput after the dip Azure encounters at around the 2:30 mark – presumably Azure allocates more resource at that point. That dip deserves further attention and is something I will come back to in a future post.

Rapid Ramp Up

This test case starts with 10 users and adds 10 users every 2 seconds up to a maximum of 1000 concurrent users to demonstrate a more rapid increase in load and a higher peak concurrency.

Again AWS handles the increase in load very smoothly maintaining a low response time throughout and is the clear leader.

Azure struggles to keep up with this rate of request increase. Response times hover around the 1.5 second mark throughout the growth stage and gradually decrease towards something acceptable over the next 3 minutes. Throughput continues to climb over the full duration of the test run matching and perhaps slightly exceeding Google by the end but still some way behind Amazon.

Google has two quite distinctively sharp drops in response time early on in the growth stageas the load increases before quickly stabilising with a response time around 140ms and levels off with throughput in line with the demand at the end of the growth phase.

I didn’t run this test with .NET, instead hitting the systems with an immediate 1000 users, but nevertheless the results are inline with that test particularly once the growth phase is over.

Immediate High Demand

This test case starts immediately with 400 concurrent users and stays at that level of load for 5 minutes demonstrating the response to a sudden spike in demand.

Both AWS and Google scale quickly to deal with the sudden demand both hitting a steady and low response time around the 1 minute mark but AWS is a clear leader in throughput – it is able to get through many more requests per second than Google due to its lower response time.

Azure again brings up the rear – it takes nearly 2 minutes to reach a steady response time that is markedly higher than both Google and AWS. Throughput continues to increase to the end of the test where it eventually peaks slightly ahead of Google but still some way behind AWS. It then experiences a fall off which is difficult to explain from the data available.

Stock Functions

This test uses the stock “return a string” function provided by each platform (I’ve captured the code in GitHub for reference) with the immediate high demand scenario: 400 concurrent users for 5 minutes.

With the functions essentially doing no work and no IO the response times are, as you would expect, smaller across the board but the scaling patterns are essentially unchanged from the workload function under the same load. AWS and Google respond quickly while Azure ramps up more slowly over time.

Percentile Performance

I was unable to obtain this data from VSTS and so resorted to running Apache Benchmarker. For this test I used settings of 100 concurrent requests for a total of 10000 requests, collected the raw data, and processed it in Excel. It should be noted that the network conditions were less predictable for these tests and I wasn’t always as geographically close to the cloud function as I was in other tests though repeated runs yielded similar patterns:

AWS maintains a pretty steady response time up to and including the 98th percentile but then shows marked dips in performance in the 99th and 100th percentiles with a worst case of around 8.5 seconds.

Google dips in performance after the 97th percentile with it’s 99th percentile roughly equivalent to AWSs 100th percentile and it’s own 100th percentile being twice as slow.

Azure exhibits a significant dip in performance at the 96th percentile with a sudden drop in response time from a not great 2.5 seconds to 14.5 seconds – in AWSs 100th percentile territory. Beyond the 96th percentile their is a fairly steady decrease in performance of around 2.5 seconds per percentile.

Cold Starts

All the vendors solutions go “cold” after a time leading to a delay when they start. To get a sense for this I left each vendor idle overnight and then had 1 user make repeat requests for 1 minute to illustrate the cold start time but also get a visual sense of request rate and variance in response time:

Again we have some quite striking results. AWS has the lowest cold start time of around 1.5 seconds, Google is next at 2.5 seconds and Azure again the worst performer at 9 seconds. All three systems then settle into a fairly consistent response time but it’s striking in these graphs how AWS Lambda’s significantly better performance translates into nearly 3x as many requests as Google and 10x more requests than Azure over the minute.

It’s worth noting that the cold start time for the stock functions is almost exactly the same as for my main test case – the startup is function related and not connected to storage IO.

Conclusions

AWS Lambda is the clear leader for HTTP triggered functions – on all the runtimes I’ve tried it has the lowest response times and, at least within the volumes tested, the best ability to deal with scale and the most consistent performance. Google Cloud Functions are not far behind and it will be interesting to see if they can close the gap with optimisation work over the coming year – if they can get their flat our response times reduced they will probably pull level with AWS. The results are similar enough in their characteristics that my suspicion is Google and AWS have similar underlying approaches.

Unfortunately, like with the .NET scenarios, Azure is poor at handling HTTP triggered functions with very similar patterns on show. The Azure issues are not framework based but due to how they are hosting functions and handling scale. Hopefully over the next few months we’ll see some improvements that make Azure a more viable host for HTTP serverless / API approaches when latency matters.

By all means use the above as a rough guide but ultimately whatever platform you choose I’d encourage you to build out the smallest representative vertical slice of functionality you can and test it.

Thanks for reading – hopefully this data is useful.

Contact

  • If you're looking for help with C#, .NET, Azure, Architecture, or would simply value an independent opinion then please get in touch here or over on Twitter.

Recent Posts

Recent Tweets

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

GiottoPress by Enrique Chavez