>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Max is actually 100Gb
>
>What is the pricing for 100Gb size? I don't see it listed. Multiply that times 48. Again - money out the window as an expense.

OK. They offer up to 100GB on the pricing guide although the max for a single database is 50GB. Above 50GB they suggest partitioning (which, if you have a single database of that size would seem a good way to go anyway?)

>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Your figure of $6K is correct for Azure - but can your provide actually costings for the on-premise setup?
>
>Perhaps 1 day of my time to set up and load 2 servers. $500 maybe. Less if an underling does it.

Do you really just set up a couple of servers, lock them in a cupboard and forget about them for 4 years?
But I'd also assume that most firms using SQL azure would also be moving web sites or services to the cloud as well rather than using the database in isolation. In that case you get rid of additional boxes for IIS etc.....

>>>The servers are business assets and are depreciated accordingly.
>>
>>But paid for up front.
>
>Assets. Whether paid in cash or financed.

But the same logic as buying or leasing a car. From a tax POV they both have pros and cons.

Anyway, I'm not really a cloud evangelist and it may not be suitable for your circumstances but you cannot extrapolate from that and assume that is true for everyone.

>>>
>>>The other Azure expenses (keyword - expenses)? You try to figure them out.
>>
>>For Azure SQL I think the only relevant additional cost is for outgoing volume. Again I can't figure that out without knowing your situation. How many Gb of data do you estimate goes out each month ?