adr-0061 subscription-per-customer-model-on-azure #820
Conversation
raviranjanelastisys
changed the title
simonklb
left a comment
simonklb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are currently in talks with Azure representatives regarding how we should position ourselves in their marketplace and are going to have a discussion with their technical advisors in the, hopefully, coming days. Therefore I'd postpone sealing this decision in an ADR before we've heard their suggestions while not blocking beta. Is that possible?
|
I would also like to see multiple tenants as an evaluated option. Maybe it's obvious why it would not be an viable option but let's put it in writing. Take Azure lighthouse into consideration when evaluating multi-tenancy. |
Sure !! I will keep this ADR on hold until we hear from Azure team too !! Yeah for now, it shouldn't be Beta blocker from our end. |
| Chosen option: | ||
|
|
||
| - Isolation at the Subscription level i.e Subscription-per-Customer Model. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about environments of the same customer? How will those be isolated? Separate subscription or resource groups?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say separate subscriptions. So we can treat subscriptions as projects in openstack and then we have some similarity with them.
raviranjanelastisys
force-pushed
the
rranjan/subscription-azure
branch
from
1091a74 to
de82ef3
Compare
raviranjanelastisys
changed the title
|
@raviranjanelastisys Just noticed this PR. Can you give it another push? |
Yeah We now have good understanding, I will give another push :) , thanks for reminding me. |
|
@cristiklein If the traditional on-boarding method is deprecated, this ADR may no longer be necessary since customers now have the flexibility to choose via Marketplace whether to deploy Welkin in a dedicated or new subscription within their own tenant, without impacting our Welkin offerings. |
|
I got an update from Commercial recently it is still relevant because there might be some reason customer don't have anything running on Azure and don't have expertise. In such scenarios, We can offer the Welkin on our tenant. @vomba Hi Hani, do you think you can spend some time here if interested in this ADR ? Otherwise, I will have a look. |
|
@vomba can you please fix the conflicts and check if anything is missing or has changed in the meantime? |
vomba
changed the title
vomba
force-pushed
the
rranjan/subscription-azure
branch
from
de82ef3 to
c95e1b4
Compare
|
I think everything is good here, unless someone has any other comment. |
cristiklein
force-pushed
the
rranjan/subscription-azure
branch
from
c95e1b4 to
c20e9b9
Compare
cristiklein
left a comment
cristiklein
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @vomba for double-checking the content. I made pre-commit happy and regenerated the index.
@lucianvlad Can you double-check and merge if happy. Thanks!
vomba
changed the title
|
@simonklb Any more comments from your end or is this ready to merge? |
simonklb
left a comment
simonklb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good to me but it would be good for someone in @elastisys/goto-azure and/or OPS to sign off and make sure this is actually how we run things now.
|
Thanks @simonklb . @vomba is part of @elastisys/goto-azure , so ... I gather we have it signed off by GOTO Azure. 😄 @davidumea Any concerns you see before officially merging this ADR? |
5 participants
Quality gates: