> Ironically we are now in the process of moving from aws -> gcp.
Why not Azure? They have a solid platform and (at least for a MSFT partner) their support is top-notch.
Why not Azure? They have a solid platform and (at least for a MSFT partner) their support is top-notch.
Yet their support didn't ever solve a problem within their SLA's and sometimes critical level tickets were hanging for months.
Plus my impression is that whereas AWS (and possibly Google) clouds are built by engineers using best practices and logic, Azure products felt always very much marketing driven e.g. marketing gave engineering a list of features to launch and engineering did the minimum effort possible to have the corresponding box ticked. I absolutely hated working on Azure and now won't accept any contract on it.
Documentation is horrible or non-existing, things just don't work, have weird limitations or transient deployment errors, super weird architectural and implementation choices + you never escape the clunkyness of the MS legacy with for example AD.
What does this mean?
GP is saying that even though they had a contract to resolve issues within X hours/days the issues were not being solved within X hours/days.
Cynically: most SLAs with the 'Big Boys' tend to give guarantees about getting an answer, not a solution. "We are looking into the problem" may satisfy the terms of a contract, but they don't satisfy engineers in trouble.