Welcome to Pete Brown's 10rem.net

First time here? If you are a developer or are interested in Microsoft tools and technology, please consider subscribing to the latest posts.

You may also be interested in my blog archives, the articles section, or some of my lab projects such as the C64 emulator written in Silverlight.

(hide this)

My site migration to Windows Azure Web Sites

Pete Brown - 16 July 2013

In this post, I'll cover the migration of this web site from a long history of local hosting to Widows Azure Web Sites.

I've had my own personal domains (GroupLynx.com followed by irritatedvowel.com followed by 10rem.net) since the mid 90s. Early on, I used regular hosts. I've run my personal website out of a succession of servers in my basement for at least a decade. It used to be serious geek cred to be running all your own servers. Here's a photo of my site's hardware in 2003:


Back in 2007 I dumped the old desktops I was using and converted to a couple IBM 345 Xeon-based eServers in a big old APC rack. One server was for database, the other for the website. In addition, I had my own email server and domain controller at the time using old PCs housed in rack cases.

image image

(Left photo shows top of rack, right photo shows bottom of same rack. Not shown: the ethernet switch near the top)

With these wonderful servers came increased cooling needs. That meant putting a window shaker in the utility room. Not only is this ugly, but pretty sure it was costing me a fair bit over time, even at the relatively high setting I kept it on. Purchasing a refrigerated rack wasn't an option. Using a purpose-built unit with a blower on front also wasn't an option as they just cost too much to purchase and ship.


Being your own IT guy leaves you with no one to yell at

Being your own IT guy is a pretty thankless job. I've had RAID drives go defunct, servers die, and the power to the whole house drop at least twice a year. Each time that happened, my site had downtime. Sometimes, especially in the case of the power outages, it was always a question as to whether or not the servers would all come back online properly, or if I'd find myself scrambling to fix things.

Also, all this equipment in the utility room made a lot of noise. That noise was picked up by the uninsulated ducting and broadcast throughout the house. You could hear the servers if you were near any of the central heating/cooling ducts on a quiet night.


Last summer, during the derecho storm and related power outage, my database server lost another drive. The RAID configuration couldn't handle that because, as it turns out, one of the other drives had been bad for a while, and I didn't realize it. That meant that the entire second logical drive (data drive) was gone. Luckily, I had a backup of the site data, but I had no spare drives. So I cleaned up the OS drive and freed up enough room to store the database there.

I investigated hosts for quite a long time. Even though my blogging has slowed down with my newer role at Microsoft, my site still gets enough traffic to put it outside the bounds for most inexpensive hosts. I looked at Azure at the time and at the Azure Web Sites preview. However, it had a number of issues at the time which prevented me from moving to it (not the least of which was you couldn't have a domain name that began with a number - a simple regex validation bug that stopped me cold).

So I hung it back up for a while. In the meantime, the site has been down a number of times due to power outages. I did migrate email off-site, which is good, as that server eventually died, and the blacklisting associated with not being a proper host got to be a bit too much. Oh, and I realized I was starting to be used as an open relay (which despite all the work I did in patches etc, kept happening).

Moving to Azure

Earlier this year, I made up my mind to move to Azure Web Sites during my first vacation. Right after Build, I took two weeks off, and used a small amount of that for the migration. My wife and kids were up at my mother-in-law's so the house was quiet and I could really concentrate on the move.

This site has been running on Windows Azure since the early morning hours of July 9, 2013. The timing was perfect, as I had yet another power outage, this one killing the domain server. No, I didn't have a backup domain server. That made some server tasks…challenging, but not impossible.

When moving to Azure there were several steps:

  • Create the Azure account
  • Create a Windows Azure Website instance
  • Create a Database server (if required)
  • Copy the site files
  • Migrate data
  • Map domain names

My site runs an old version of Umbraco that I have customized to better support my blog. There's a fair bit of custom code in there, so migrating to a newer version would be a chore. I decided for this move to just bring the whole thing over wholesale. Using an FTP client, I was able to move the site files over quite easily. In fact, there's almost nothing interesting about that process. Azure gives you the FTP address, and you just dump files to it. Simple as that.


The database was a bit more interesting.

Because I use an external database server, and not just something simple like vistadb, I had to export data to the Azure database. If you use a filesystem-based database like vistadb with your install, this whole process becomes much simpler. I tried many different ways of getting the data over. Of all the things, this was the most time consuming. (Note that I'm using a SQL Database Business edition. Web would work fine, and you can switch between them as necessary. Currently, they both have the same pricing and features, as I understand it.)

It's so simple though? Why was it time consuming?

Exporting the BACPAC

The reason was I was running a bare SQL Server 2008 install (no SP, no R2) and using those client tools. What I didn't realize until I spoke with another person on the team, is that I needed to use the SQL Server 2012 client tools and then the migration would be dead simple. Let me save you that time: if you want to move a SQL database to Azure, regardless of what version, grab the SQL Server 2012 client tools.


Download the full installer (SQLEXPRWT_x64_ENU.exe), not the one that is oddly named SQLManagementStudio. Because, well, that package doesn't include the management studio. You want SQLEXPR_x64_ENU.exe (or the 32 bit version if you are on a 32 bit OS).

You'll also need to create and configure a windows azure storage account and a container (go into configure page and then choose "manage access keys" to get the account key). This is where the export package will reside.

Once I had the right product, I was able to export what is known as a "bacpac" file. This is not the same as a "dacpac", and is an option only available in the 2012 client tools. You'll need to export (not extract) the BACPAC from the database using the client tools. This is right on the context menu for the database.


This will then bring you through a wizard. There aren't that many options. Note that you can have the bacpac uploaded to Azure automatically. This is the option I recommend you choose.

image image image

Because of my old SQL install and the newer standards, I was missing clustered indexes in the Umbraco database. The export failed because of that. Stuff like this must drive DBAs mad.


Once I went in and created clustered indexes for all tables, the export completed without a hitch.


Then, I went into Azure and chose the option to import the database from the bacpac file. I had created a database prior to this, but decided to simply delete it and let the import create everything for me from scratch. After about 10 minutes of Azure showing me 5% complete (which means you're queued, as I was told), the import completed and the database was online.


Painless! At that point, you could delete the bacpac if you're comfortable the database is up and running. I verified the data using the 2012 client tools - they could connect to Azure as easily as any other networked database.

The domain

The next step was to map the domain over. I had to do this because my build of Umbraco 4 includes redirect code which sends you to the main URL for the site regardless of what you type in. That makes testing on a non-production URL impossible. I don't recall if this is something I added to make sure I could use a naked domain like or if it was something intrinsic in Umbraco 4.

Now, if you're smart, you'll do all this before you even start with the database import. Why? Because DNS takes time to propagate.

image image

Before you can map domains, Windows Azure requires that you map some CNAMES for verification purposes, for each unique domain, as shown in the above screenshot. You can map the primary, or use some purpose-named subdomains. Azure is specific about this, so make sure you have the names mapped exactly as requested. For example, here's my main 10rem.net zone file with the Azure-required domains still mapped:

MX Records:
A Records:
10rem.net. IN A
www.10rem.net. IN A
CNAME Records:
awverify.10rem.net. IN CNAME awverify.10rem.azurewebsites.net.
awverify.www.10rem.net. IN CNAME awverify.10rem.azurewebsites.net.
TXT Records:

You can't map your domain in Windows Azure until those cnames become visible to Azure. One way to track that is to use this web site:


Using this site, you can see the state of propagation for your DNS entries. It's quite useful. Simply pick "all" and enter the host names. Here's what it finds for my main domain:


If you want to just check the authoritative one for your domain, select that from the options:


It's quite useful to monitor progress as you don't want to wait two or more hours to find out you messed something up.

Here's the awverify verification:


Note the CNAME entry - that's what Azure requires.

Azure in Production

My Azure Web Site is running in Shared mode, with .NET Framework 4.5, 64 bit with no other special settings.

So far, with just this small shared instance, everything has been running very smoothly. I'll continue to monitor in case it makes sense to make more capacity available in the future. I can see adding perhaps one more instance, but so far, it's quite happy as it stands today. My CPU time stays low. Memory usage is the highest number, at about 50% capacity on average.


How's the cost? It's really very reasonable. Here's the cost so far, from late 7/8 through today


Yes, that's a whopping $7.04, or around a dollar a day. I've probably saved more than that in electricity just by killing the server rack and the associated AC unit.

I'm at about half the site visits I had in 2011. Once I pick up blogging at a pace like I used to, I would expect to see that go up. However, even at double or triple the cost, that's still a good deal considering I have a website with 3GB in files and several hundred MBs of database.


So far, this experiment with Windows Azure Web Sites is going quite well. Once I had the right tools, getting the database over was simple. Copying the files over was a no-brainer, and even though my Umbraco website ran under an older version of .NET locally, it worked just fine when moved to the server.

My site traffic is not much different from some small businesses I've seen. For those, especially ones which have seasonal traffic patterns, going with something like WAWS makes perfect sense.

posted by Pete Brown on Tuesday, July 16, 2013
filed under:          

13 comments for “My site migration to Windows Azure Web Sites”

  1. Petesays:
    One comment: in order to get the umbraco web site management tools (the stuff built in to umbraco) working properly, I had to set the httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0" instead of the default 4.0. Note that this is with an old rev of umbraco -
  2. Timsays:
    Azure has served as the backbone of my side-project app (both Windows Store and Web app front ends) for over 6 months, and I've had a great experience. I wouldn't want to move to anything else. However, between a Web site (scaled to Standard since Shared doesn't yet support SSL), one Cloud Service, a SQL database, and the Mobile Service, the cost is a bit steep. There are other hosting options that are less expensive, but none as convenient and productive as what Azure provides. I don't have to worry as much about cost for the next two years due to my BizSpark membership, but I do hope the costs come down. I'd hate to move away from Azure.
  3. Brendan Tompkinssays:
    I'm in a very similar situation as you were. I've made one false start move to azure with a wordpress site running on an Ubuntu VM.. It didn't seem to handle the load, and I never had time to fully investigate the fix. Can I ask you what kind of traffic you get on your sites that you've moved over?
  4. Petesays:

    Since I essentially stopped blogging for a while, I get only around 30-45k pageviews a month. In my previous role, with a more solid blogging pace, I was averaging around 80k-120k pageviews a month. More at the peak, or if I got /. :).

    This post has had a few thousand views. If you measure the download size for the page (with graphics etc.) you can estimate bandwidth. Windows Azure tells me in the last 24 hours, I've served up 5.85 GB of data to the outside world and had 91,575 requests (requests include pages, scripts, images, etc.)

    Hope that helps.

  5. Michael Washingtonsays:
    Ok Pete you just made another sale for Azure. I'm moving my next site over. I wanted to for a long time, but your in-depth article removed all my questions and concerns. The "cost" at the end of the article was very key, but all the other stuff, including the domain name pointing and moving the database was very important.

    Well done!
  6. Lee Drakesays:
    Just curious if your cost estimates above included the period of time you were uploading initial data, or if that was post-initiation. I would expect big transfer fees during the initial site load - wondering if that's $1/day includes those initial fees or if it's operating costs only.

    Also I assume you didn't have an SSL assigned - is that easy to do? and if so does it add cost?
  7. Petesays:
    @Lee it included that time.

    Memory is turning out to be the bottleneck. I think Umbraco (at least the old version I run) uses quite a bit. After ScottGu mentioned the post, I ran up against the quota and the site was suspended. Memory usage was 640mb.

    Everything else (CPU, file system, etc.) are all well within capabilities.

    I added a second instance which brings me to 1024MB available memory. That will obviously raise the cost per month, but not by a ton.

    Autoscaling is available for the Standard site but not for the shared version I use. I'm going to see how far I can get with Shared.


Comment on this Post

Remember me