>>>Further to last:
>>>
>>>You can specify the number of instances in Visual Studio but then upload the modified package to change the actual deployment on the cloud. Bit cumbersome but I guess not something you would do often
>>>
>>>Update : Just found a simpler way. You can change the number of instances simply by editing the configuration in the management portal......
>>
>>Thanks, but, this seems like highly proprietary infrastructure. With the one I was requested information about, under a VM structure, I would benefit of a VPN TS access to a server, in VM mode, and would be able to do anything I would mostly do as if I would sit directly on the server. The only difference is that it would be shared across several clients. But, I would be able to get into IIS, adjust my own settings, go in SSMS, setup my database in the way I want, install desktop applications (robots) serving the Web sites, do backups on frequent basis elsewhere on the same drive, configured web.config as I wish, etc. And, then, I would benefit of FTP access as well to upload and download my stuff.
>
>Hey, I'm not trying to talk you into anything. The Azure platform (or, for example, Amazons offerings) may not work for you.
>That said, I think most of the concerns you express above are not well founded.
>
>For example, you can still use SSMS to set up an Azure SQL database (although not quite as intuitively as when going against a normal SQL server). Worker web roles can give you the same functionality as your desktop 'robots'.
>Uploading via FTP offers no benefits over the Azure deployment process (in fact the opposite)
>
>The one point you make that may be valid is regarding backups. There is no simple backup process for Azure SQL - although paying for two instances of Azure SQL gets around that to a certain extent.
>
>I see from Bill's post that he thinks maintaining your own hardware/software infrastructure is cheaper (and presumably more reliable?) than using Azure but I'm not sure I accept his findings (Bill - do you want to post your detailed comparative costings?). A couple of case studies show that some organisations have reduced their bill from $60k to $20k. Obviously MS are going to cherry pick the best examples but if those savings are achievable then it's worth a look.....
>
>On top of all that the data centre infrastructure that can guarantee such high availability is hard to beat.


Let's see, the prime database I work with now is about 80Gig - wait - SQL Azure doesn't support that.

Lets work at 50Gig which is the largest for SQL Azure.

$6000/year for the database alone - not including process, transaction, transfer, on and on. Over 4 years I can easily have afforded a pair of new database servers with more room, SAN backup, and 2 SQL processor licenses each and internet access with $$ to spare.

The servers are business assets and are depreciated accordingly.

The other Azure expenses (keyword - expenses)? You try to figure them out.