This browser is no longer supported.
Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.
![](data:image/svg+xml, %3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' height='64' class='font-weight-bold' style='font: 600 30.11764705882353px "SegoeUI", Arial' width='64'%3E%3Ccircle fill='hsl(272, 5%, 36%)' cx='32' cy='32' r='32' /%3E%3Ctext x='50%25' y='55%25' dominant-baseline='middle' text-anchor='middle' fill='%23FFF' %3EPS%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
In the AKS documentation, i found the below content about AKS SLA. Can someone clarify why the SLA for AKS using Availability Zone is lower than the AKS not using Availability Zones.
"In the Standard tier, the Uptime SLA feature is enabled by default per cluster. The Uptime SLA feature guarantees 99.95% availability of the Kubernetes API server endpoint for clusters using Availability Zones, and 99.9% of availability for clusters that aren't using Availability Zones.For more information, see SLA."
I can provide some general insights into why SLA (Service Level Agreement) values might differ between AKS deployments with and without Availability Zones.
Availability Zones (AZs) are a feature provided by cloud providers like Microsoft Azure that offer increased availability and fault tolerance for services. They involve distributing resources across physically separate data centers within a region. Each Availability Zone operates independently with its own power, cooling, and networking. In case of a failure in one zone, the services can continue to operate in other zones.
The SLA of a service is typically based on its level of availability, which is a measure of how often the service is operational and accessible. When comparing SLA values between AKS deployments with and without Availability Zones, a lower SLA for the Availability Zone-based deployment might imply that the service is expected to be less available in that configuration and Several factors could contribute to this difference like Complexity of Configuration , Networking and Latency, service outage etc
It's important to note that SLA values are contractual guarantees, and providers might adjust these values based on their own assessments of the technology's maturity and real-world performance. When evaluating SLAs, it's essential to consider your specific application's requirements, the architecture of your deployment, and the trade-offs between availability and complexity.
Hope it clears your doubts
Thanks for the explanation and i understand this from the documentation as well.
My question is - When i use AKS with Availability Zone, i am spreading the AKS deployment across AZs and should provide me higher SLA. However the document states (refer the extract in my question), AKS with AZs is providing lower availability SLA than AKS without AZs.
When you deploy an Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) cluster with Availability Zones (AZs), you are indeed spreading your cluster's nodes across different AZs, which should theoretically provide higher availability due to increased fault tolerance. Availability Zones are isolated locations within an Azure region, each with its own independent power, cooling, and networking. By distributing your AKS nodes across these zones, you can improve your application's resilience to hardware failures, datacenter outages, and other localized issues.
However, the reason the documentation might mention a potentially lower availability SLA for AKS with Availability Zones could be due to the fact that using Availability Zones might introduce additional complexity to your setup. Configuring and managing applications across multiple Availability Zones can require additional effort in terms of networking, load balancing, and application design. If not done correctly, this added complexity could potentially lead to misconfigurations or issues that might impact availability.
In contrast, AKS without Availability Zones might have a simpler configuration and management overhead, which could lead to a higher SLA. This doesn't necessarily mean that AKS with Availability Zones is less available in practice; it's just highlighting that the complexity introduced by spreading across zones might require careful consideration and planning to fully realize the potential benefits.
It's important to note that the choice between AKS with Availability Zones and AKS without Availability Zones depends on your specific application's requirements, desired level of fault tolerance, and the trade-offs you're willing to make in terms of complexity and management overhead. If implemented correctly, AKS with Availability Zones should provide higher availability and resilience to failures.
When evaluating these options, make sure to thoroughly assess your application's needs, consider the potential complexities, and weigh the benefits of higher availability against the potential challenges in managing a multi-zone deployment.
hope this clears your doubt and everything , please accept if it does , Thanks!
Hi @Prabu Soundarrajan,
99.95% value is higher than 99.90%, So SLA value for AKS using Availability Zones is higher than without Availability Zones.
Sorry for the Oversight, Thanks! It helps!