M365 Show with Mirko Peters - Microsoft 365 Digital Workplace Daily

Mirko Peters - Microsoft 365 Expert Podcast

The M365 Show – Microsoft 365, Azure, Power Platform & Cloud Innovation Stay ahead in the world of Microsoft 365, Azure, and the Microsoft Cloud. The M365 Show brings you expert insights, real-world use cases, and the latest updates across Power BI, Power Platform, Microsoft Teams, Viva, Fabric, Purview, Security, AI, and more. Hosted by industry experts, each episode features actionable tips, best practices, and interviews with Microsoft MVPs, product leaders, and technology innovators. Whether you’re an IT pro, business leader, developer, or data enthusiast, you’ll discover the strategies, trends, and tools you need to boost productivity, secure your environment, and drive digital transformation. Your go-to Microsoft 365 podcast for cloud collaboration, data analytics, and workplace innovation. Tune in, level up, and make the most of everything Microsoft has to offer. Visit M365.show. m365.show

  1. Azure PostgreSQL Is Costing You THOUSANDS

    قبل ٦ ساعات

    Azure PostgreSQL Is Costing You THOUSANDS

    Opening – The Hidden Azure Tax Your Azure PostgreSQL bill isn’t high because of traffic. It’s high because of you. Specifically, because you clicked “Next” one too many times in the deployment wizard and trusted the defaults like they were commandments. Most admins treat Flexible Server as a set-it-and-forget-it managed database. It isn’t. It’s a meticulously priced babysitting service that charges by the hour whether your kid’s awake or asleep. This walkthrough exposes why your so‑called “managed” instance behaves like a full‑time employee you can’t fire. You’ll see how architecture choices—storage tiers, HA replicas, auto‑grow, even Microsoft’s “recommended settings”—inflate costs quietly. And yes, there’s one box you ticked that literally doubles your compute bill. We’ll reach that by the end. Let’s dissect exactly where the money goes—and why Azure’s guidance is the technical equivalent of ordering dessert first and pretending salad later will balance the bill. Section 1 – The Illusion of “Managed” Administrators love the phrase “managed service.” It sounds peaceful. Like Azure is out there patching, tuning, and optimizing while you nap. Spoiler: “managed” doesn’t mean free labor; it means Microsoft operates the lights while you still pay the power bill. Flexible Server runs each instance on its own virtual machine—isolated, locked, and fully billed. There’s no shared compute fairy floating between tenants trimming waste. You’ve essentially rented a VM that happens to include PostgreSQL pre‑installed. When it sits idle, so does your budget—except the charges don’t idle with it. Most workloads hover at 10‑30% CPU, but the subscription charges you as if the cores are humming twenty‑four seven. That’s the VM baseline trap. You’re paying for uptime you’ll never use. It’s the cloud’s version of keeping your car engine running during lunch “just in case.” Then come the burstable SKUs. Everyone loves these—cheap headline price, automatic elasticity, what’s not to adore? Here’s what. Burstable tiers give you a pool of CPU credits. Each minute below your baseline earns credit—each minute above spends it. Run long enough without idling and you drain the bucket, throttling performance to a crawl. Suddenly the “bargain” instance spends its life gasping for compute like a treadmill on low battery. Designed for brief spurts, many admins unknowingly run them as full‑time production nodes. Catastrophic cost per transaction, concealed behind “discount” pricing. Now, Azure touts the stop/start feature as a cost‑saving hero. It isn’t. When you stop the instance, Azure pauses compute billing—but the storage meter keeps ticking. Your data disks remain mounted, your backups keep accumulating, and those pleasant‑sounding gigabytes bill by the second. So yes, you’re saving on CPU burn, but you’re still paying rent on the furniture. Here’s the reality check most teams miss: migration to Flexible Server doesn’t eliminate infrastructure management—it simply hides it behind a friendlier interface and a bigger invoice. You must still profile workloads, schedule stop periods, and right‑size compute exactly as if you owned the hardware. Managed means patched; it doesn’t mean optimized. Consider managed like hotel housekeeping. They’ll make the bed and replace towels, but if you leave the faucet running, that water charge is yours. The first big takeaway? Treat your PostgreSQL Flexible Server like an on‑prem host. Measure CPU utilization, schedule startup windows, avoid burstable lust, and stop imagining that “managed” equals “efficient.” It doesn’t. It equals someone else maintaining your environment while Azure’s meter hums steadily in the background, cheerfully compiling your next surprise invoice. Now that we’ve peeled back the automation myth, it’s time to open your wallet and meet the real silent predator—storage. Section 2 – Storage: The Silent Bill Multiplier Let’s talk storage—the part nobody measures until the receipt arrives. In Azure PostgreSQL Flexible Server, disks are the hotel minibar. Quiet, convenient, and fatally overpriced. You don’t notice the charge until you’ve already enjoyed the peanuts. Compute you can stop. Storage never sleeps. Every megabyte provisioned has a permanent price tag, whether a single query runs or not. Flexible Server keeps your database disks fully allocated, even when compute is paused. Because “flexible” in Azure vocabulary means persistent. Idle I/O still racks up the bill. Now the main culprit: auto-grow. It sounds delightful—safety through expansion. The problem? It only grows one way. Once a data disk expands, there is no native auto‑shrink. That innocent emergency expansion during a batch import? Congratulations, your storage tier just stayed inflated forever. You can’t deflate it later without manual intervention and downtime. Azure is endlessly generous when giving you more space; it shows remarkable restraint when taking any back. And here’s where versioning divides the careless from the economical. There are two classes of Premium SSD—v1 and v2. With v1, price roughly tracks capacity, with modest influence from IOPS and throughput. With v2, these performance metrics become explicit dials—capacity, IOPS, and bandwidth priced separately. Most admins hear “newer equals faster” and upgrade blindly. What they get instead is three independent billing streams for resources they’ll rarely saturate. It’s like paying business‑class for storage only to sit in economy, surrounded by five empty seats you technically “own.” Performance over‑provisioning is the default crime. Developers size disks assuming worst‑case loads: “We’ll need ten thousand IOPS, just in case.” Reality: half that requirement never materializes, but your bill remains loyal to the inflated promise. Azure’s pricing model secretly rewards panic and punishes data realism. It locks you into paying for theoretical performance instead of observed need. Then there’s the dev‑to‑prod drift—an unholy tradition of cloning production tiers straight into staging or test. That 1 TB storage meant for mission‑critical workloads? It’s now sitting under a QA database containing five gigabytes of lorem ipsum. Congratulations, you just rented a warehouse to store a shoebox. Storage bills multiply quietly because costs compound across redundancy, backup retention, and premium tiers. Each gigabyte gets mirrored, snapshotted, and versioned. Users think they’re paying for disks; they’re actually paying for copies of copies of disks they no longer need. Picture a real‑world mishap: a developer requests a “small test environment” for a migration mock‑run. Someone spins up a Flexible Server clone with default settings—1 TB premium tier, auto‑grow enabled. The test finishes, but no one deletes the instance. Months later, that “temporary” server alone has quietly drained four digits from the budget, storing transaction logs for a database no human queries. The fix isn’t technology; it’s restraint. Cap auto‑grow. Audit disk size monthly. Track write latency and IOPS utilization, then right‑size to actual throughput—not aspiration. For genuine elasticity, use Premium SSD v2 judiciously and dynamically scale performance tiers via PowerShell or CLI instead of baking in excess capacity you’ll never touch. Storage won’t warn you before it multiplies; it just keeps billing until you notice. The trick is to stop treating each gigabyte as insurance and start viewing it as rented real estate. Trim regularly, claim refunds only in saved megabytes, and never, ever leave a dev database camping on premium terrain. Fine. Disks are tamed. But now comes the monster that promises protection and delivers invoices—high availability. Section 3 – High Availability: Paying Twice for Paranoia High availability sounds noble. It implies uptime, business continuity, and heroic resilience. In Azure PostgreSQL Flexible Server, however, HA often means something far simpler: you’re paying for two of everything so one can sleep while the other waits to feel useful. By default, enabling HA duplicates your compute and your storage. Every vCore, every gigabyte, perfectly mirrored. Azure calls it “synchronous replication,” which sounds advanced until you realize it’s shorthand for “we bill you twice to guarantee zero‑data‑loss you don’t actually need.” The system keeps a standby replica in lockstep with the primary, writing every transaction twice before acknowledging success. Perfect consistency, yes. But at a perfect price—double. The sales pitch says this protects against disasters. The truth? Most workloads don’t deserve that level of paranoia. If your staging database goes down for ten minutes, civilization will continue. Analytics pipelines can catch back up. QA environments don’t need a ghost twin standing by in the next zone, doing nothing but mirroring boredom. Yet countless teams switch on HA globally because Microsoft labels it “recommended for production.” A recommendation that conveniently doubles monthly revenue. Here’s the fun part: the standby replica can’t even do anything interesting. You can’t point traffic at it. You can’t run read queries on it. It sits there obediently replicating and waiting for an asteroid strike. Until then, it produces zero business value, yet the meter spins as if it’s calculating π. Calling it “high availability” is generous; “highly available invoice” would be more accurate. Now, does that mean HA is worthless? No. It’s essential for transactional, customer‑facing systems where every update matters—think payment processing or real‑time inventory. In those cases, losing even seconds of data hurts. But analytics, staging, and internal

    ٢٠ من الدقائق
  2. قبل ١٣ ساعة

    Mastering Financial Reporting with SharePoint Agents

    You need better financial reports. Doing things by hand is hard. You waste time making reports. This can cause mistakes. Finance teams spend a lot of time on reports. They lose many hours. You also have trouble with correct data. It is hard to keep track of changes. A SharePoint agent can help. It uses Copilot technology. This is a smart computer tool. It helps with financial data. It pulls out information. It makes summaries. This blog shows you how to use it. You will understand your money better. Key Takeaways * SharePoint agents use smart computer tools. They make financial reporting easier. They help you understand your money better. * These agents get facts from many file types. They make summaries. They answer questions about your money data. * You can build your own agent. You tell it where to find facts. This helps you get money data fast. * SharePoint agents make your reports more right. They save time. They help you make better choices. * You must keep your money data safe. Use strong rules for who can see things. SharePoint has tools to help with this. Why Automate Financial Reporting? Manual Reporting Challenges You have many issues. Manual financial reporting is hard. These tasks take much time. They often cause errors. You might type wrong numbers. This makes financial statements wrong. You could also put money in wrong places. This changes your sales numbers. Sometimes, your accounts do not match. This shows hidden problems. If you use different money, you might have trouble changing it. These mistakes make your money picture unclear. Automation Benefits Automation brings many good things. It makes your work quicker. It also makes your reports more right. Automating data entry saves many hours. It can save days of work. Full automation can save over 25,000 hours each year. It can save your staff up to 40% of their time. This lets them do important tasks. They can look at money data. You get quick access to your money data. This helps you make better choices. SharePoint’s Role in Automation SharePoint gives a strong base. It helps with automation. It helps you handle your money papers. You can store, share, and control them. SharePoint helps you work together. Many IT people use SharePoint. They use it for teamwork. Working together can boost output. It can go up by 20 to 25 percent. SharePoint also has strong safety. It helps you follow rules. It has audit trails. You can set rules. These rules say how long to keep data. This makes sure you follow rules. SharePoint can get data from Excel files. This makes your reports better. It also checks your data. This platform prepares for your financial reporting agent. Understanding the SharePoint Agent What is a SharePoint Agent? A SharePoint agent is an AI helper. It uses words from your SharePoint site. It also uses chosen files. These agents are smart tools. They are in Microsoft 365. They make work easier. They help teams work better. They answer questions about SharePoint content. You need a Microsoft 365 Copilot license. This lets you make these agents. Or, your company can pay for them. A SharePoint agent works with SharePoint. It uses its tools. You can set them up. They do tasks when things happen. This includes file changes. It also includes what users do. They follow set rules. They work the same every time. You watch these agents. You use one main screen. This helps you see how they work. You can make changes. These agents use the same AI. It is like Microsoft 365 Copilot. They work safely in Microsoft 365. They also follow SharePoint rules. This keeps your data safe. It stops too much sharing. You can change them more. Use Microsoft Copilot Studio. This lets them work with other tools. They can do more tasks. Core Agent Capabilities A SharePoint agent gets data. It pulls from many file types. This includes Word, Excel, and PDF. SharePoint has tools to read documents. They find, sort, and take out info. These tools work in SharePoint libraries. Ready-made tools help right away. They take out info from common papers. You do not need to train them. For example, they read contracts. They also read bills and receipts. They find private info too. Custom tools are made for certain files. They work with different document types. When you use a tool on a SharePoint library, it links to a content type. This shows how the info is set up. It has spots to save this data. SharePoint’s smart tool gets specific info. It fills in details by itself. A SharePoint agent helps you find files. You can use normal words. You can ask it to “Summarize the last meeting notes.” This helps leaders. It helps project managers. It also helps content makers. They need files fast. Financial Reporting Use Cases You can use a SharePoint agent. It helps with many money reports. It sums up money reports. It finds important money numbers. It also makes FAQs from reports. For example, you can make an FAQ. It uses your info. You put an FAQ part on a SharePoint page. You pick your files. These are like money reports. They are often PDFs or PowerPoints. You choose why you need the FAQ. You give details. Then, you make your FAQ. The AI makes groups, questions, and answers. You can fix and sort these. You check the answers. You give your thoughts. A Microsoft 365 Copilot license is needed. This is for those who make or change the FAQ part. This strong Copilot tool helps you. It turns hard reports into easy FAQs. This makes money data easier to get. You can also use a Copilot agent builder. This makes special AI agents. They help with specific money needs. Building Your Financial Reporting Agent You can make your own money report helper. This is easy to do. It helps you learn about money fast. You will show the helper your money papers. Agent Creation Overview Making a SharePoint helper is simple. You start in SharePoint. Find “Create an agent.” This helps you begin. You can change how your helper looks. You can add or remove info sources. These are sites, pages, and files. You can use more than your site. You make the helper act how you want. You write special prompts. These fit its goal. To make your helper, go to the place you want it to work. Then, click “New Agent” or “Create Agent.” Set up where it gets info. Pick certain folders, files, or libraries. For example, pick only competitor analyses. Or pick project files. Add special rules. These tell the helper how to answer. For instance, ask it to sound friendly. Or, ask it to show important things. Last, save the helper. Share it if needed. Any site member can make a SharePoint helper. This lets teams build helpers easily. These helpers use Copilot tech to help you. Data Source Integration You must tell your helper where to find facts. This means you pick the document library. For money reports, pick a library called “Reports.” This library has all your money papers. SharePoint helps you link this data. It uses ‘Column Default Value Settings’. This links folders to special data names. When you put papers in these folders, they get the right names. This auto-tagging keeps your money data neat. It also makes it easy to search. This helps your helper find facts faster. To set this up, go to Library Settings. Click the Gear Icon. Then click Library Settings. On that page, pick ‘Column Default Value Settings’. On the left, you see your folders. In the middle, you see your data names. Click a folder on the left. Then, pick a name in the middle. Give it a value. Pick ‘Use this default value’. Type the exact choice from your list. For example, for a ‘Facebook > Contracts’ folder, link ‘Client Name = Facebook’. Also link ‘Document Type = Contract’. Do this for other names and folders. A green gear shows a folder is linked. After this, putting files in these folders will tag them. This tagging is based on the folder. This makes sure your helper always has good data. Agent Logic and Output Your helper answers your questions. For example, you might ask, “Summarize key financial highlights.” Or, “What are common financial KPIs?” The helper looks in your chosen document library. It uses its Copilot smarts. It finds the right facts. The helper’s answer is clear and useful. It gives summed-up data. It shows where the facts came from. This means you can always check the source. This makes you trust the helper’s answers. The helper can also make FAQs. It puts these on a SharePoint page. These FAQs have links to the first reports. This makes it easy for others to get answers. You can use a Copilot agent builder. This helps you make these features better. This helps you create a strong money report helper. Enhancing Financial Reporting with SharePoint You can get the most from your SharePoint agent. This happens within the bigger Microsoft 365 system. This helps you with your financial reporting. Leveraging SharePoint Features You use SharePoint document libraries. They store reports in one place. This helps you manage your money reports. You can use special tags. SharePoint has these tags. They help sort documents the same way. Tags group similar things. This works across different libraries. For example, all papers called ‘financial report’ show up together. This is for quarterly reports. It does not matter where they are saved. This makes handling lots of data easier. It also links related items. You can sort your money reports. You can sort by who wrote them. You can sort by department or type. This makes searching faster. SharePoint also makes review and approval automatic. It keeps track of changes. It adds tags. It sets up security. This makes teamwork and compliance better. You must make document security better. This is for money reports in SharePoint. * Use SharePoint’s built-in encryption. This keeps data safe when it moves. It also keeps it safe when it sits still. * Set up strict access rules. Use SharePoint’s permission levels. Use groups. These control who can see

    ١٣ من الدقائق
  3. قبل ١٨ ساعة

    Azure App Gateway Network Isolation: The Security Fix You Missed

    Opening – The Hidden Security Hole You Didn’t Know You Had You probably thought your Azure Application Gateway was safely tucked away inside a private network—no public exposure, perfectly secure. Incorrect. For years, even a so‑called private App Gateway couldn’t exist without a public IP address. That’s like insisting every vault has to keep a spare door open “for maintenance.” And the best part? Microsoft called this isolation. Here’s the paradox: the very component meant to enforce perimeter security required an open connection to the Internet to talk to—wait for it—Microsoft’s own control systems. Your App Gateway’s management channel shared the same path as every random HTTP request hitting your app. So why design a “security” feature that refuses to stay offline? Because architecture lagged behind ideology. But the new Network Isolation model finally nails it shut. The control plane now hides completely inside Azure’s backbone, and, yes, you can actually disable Internet access without breaking anything. Section 1 – The Flawed Premise: When “Private” Still Meant “Public” Let’s revisit the crime scene. Version two of Azure Application Gateway—what most enterprises use—was sold as modern, scalable, and “network‑integrated.” What Microsoft didn’t highlight was the uncomfortable roommate sharing your subnet: an invisible entity called Gateway Manager. Here’s the problem in simple terms. Every App Gateway instance handled two very different types of traffic: your users’ HTTPS requests (the data plane) and Azure’s own configuration traffic (the control plane). Both traveled through the same front door—the single public IP bound to your gateway. From a diagram perspective, it looked elegant. In practice, it was absurd. Corporate security teams deploying “private” applications discovered that if they wanted configuration updates, monitoring, or scaling, the gateway had to stay reachable from Azure’s management service—over the public Internet. Disable that access, and the entire platform sulked into inoperability. This design created three unavoidable sins. First, the mandatory public IP. Even internal-only apps—HR portals or intranet dashboards—had to expose an external endpoint. Second, the outbound Internet dependency. The gateway had to reach Azure’s control services, meaning you couldn’t apply a true outbound‑denying firewall rule. Third, forced Azure DNS usage. Because control communications required resolving Azure service domains, administrators were shackled to 168.63.129.16 like medieval serfs to the manor. And then there was the psychological toll. Imagine preaching Zero Trust while maintaining a “management exception” in your network rules allowing traffic from Gateway Manager’s mystery IP range. You couldn’t even vet or track these IPs—they were owned and rotated by Microsoft. Compliance auditors hated it; architects whispered nervously during review meetings. Naturally, admins rebelled with creative hacks. Some manipulated Network Security Groups to block outbound Internet except specific ports. Others diverted routes through jump hosts just to trick the control plane into thinking the Internet was reachable. A few even filed compliance exceptions annotated “temporary,” which of course translated to “permanent.” The irony was hard to ignore. “Private” in Microsoft’s vocabulary meant “potentially less public.” It was the kind of privacy akin to whispering through a megaphone. The gateway technically sat in your VNET, surrounded by NSGs and rules, yet still phoned home through the Internet whenever it pleased. Eventually—and mercifully—Microsoft noticed the contradiction. After years of strained justifications, they performed the architectural equivalent of couples therapy: separating the network roles of management and user traffic. That divorce is where things start getting beautiful. Section 2 – The Architectural Breakup: Control Plane vs. Data Plane Think of the change as Azure’s most amicable divorce. The control plane and data plane finally stopped sharing toothbrushes. Previously, every configuration change—scaling, rule updates, health probes—flowed across the same channels used by real client traffic. It was fast and simple, yes, but also terrifyingly insecure. You’d never let your building’s janitor use the same security code as your CEO, yet that’s essentially how App Gateway operated. Enter Network Isolation architecture. It reroutes all management traffic through Azure’s private backbone, completely sealed from the Internet. Behind the scenes, the Azure resource manager—the central command of the control plane—now communicates with your gateway via internal service links, never traversing public space. Here’s what that means in human language. Your app’s users connect through the front end IP configuration—the normal entry point. Meanwhile, Azure’s management operations take a hidden side hallway, a backstage corridor built entirely inside Microsoft’s own network fabric. Two lanes, two purposes, zero overlap. Picture your organization’s data center as a house. Before, the plumber (Azure management) had to walk through the guest entrance every time he needed to check the pipes. Now he’s got a separate staff entrance around back, invisible from the street, never disturbing the party. Technically, this isolation eliminates multiple security liabilities. No more shared ports. No exposed control endpoints for attackers to probe. The dependency on outbound Internet connections simply vanishes—the control plane never leaves Azure’s topological bubble. Your gateway finally functions as an autonomous appliance rather than a nosy tenant. And compliance officers? They rejoice. One even reportedly cleared an Azure deployment in a single meeting—a feat previously thought mythological. Why? Because “no Internet dependencies” is a golden phrase in every risk register. Performance also improves subtly. With control paths traversing dedicated internal routes, management commands face lower latency and fewer transient failures caused by public network congestion. The architectural symmetry is elegant: the data plane handles external world interactions; the control plane handles Azure operations, and they never need to wave at each other again. This structural cleanup also simplifies mental models. You no longer have to remember that the control plane clandestinely rides alongside your client traffic. When you block Internet egress or modify DNS rules, you can do so decisively without wondering what secret Azure handshake you’ve broken. However, Microsoft didn’t just fix the wiring—they rewrote the whole relationship contract. To deploy under this new model, you must opt in. A simple registration flag under your subscription toggles between the old “shared apartment” design and the new “separate houses” framework. For the first time, administrators can create truly private App Gateways that fulfill every tenet of Zero Trust without crippling Azure’s ability to manage them. Think of it as App Gateway finally getting its own private management link—a backdoor meant only for Azure engineers, sealed from public visibility. It’s like giving the operating system’s kernel its own bus instead of borrowing user-space sockets. Clean, predictable, and, above all, properly segregated. The philosophical impact shouldn’t be understated. For years, cloud security discussions orbited around trust boundaries and shared responsibility. Yet one of Azure’s own networking pillars—Application Gateway—blurred that boundary by sending control commands over the same door customers defended. Network Isolation removes that ambiguity. It reinforces the principle that governance and user experience deserve different corridors. Of course, nothing in enterprise computing is free. You must know when and how to flip that fateful switch—because without doing so, your gateway remains old-school, attached to the same Internet leash. Freedom exists, but only for those who intentionally deploy under the new regime. And that’s where we head next: discovering the magic switch buried in Azure’s feature registration list, the toggle that turns philosophical cleanliness into architectural reality. Freedom, yes—but only if you flip the right switch. Section 3 – The Magic Switch: Registering the “Network Isolation” Flag Here’s where theory turns into action—and predictably, where Azure hides the button behind three menus and a misnamed label. Microsoft refers to this architectural masterpiece as “Network Isolation,” yet the switch controlling it lives under the Preview features blade of your subscription settings. Yes, preview. Because apparently, when Microsoft finishes something, they still put a “coming soon” sticker on it out of sheer habit. Let’s dissect what happens when you flip that flag. Turning on NetworkIso doesn’t toggle a feature in an existing gateway; it defines which architecture will govern all future deployments in your subscription. Think of it less like changing a setting, more like changing genetics. Once an App Gateway is conceived under the old model, it keeps those chromosomes forever. You can raise it differently, feed it different policies, but it’ll always call home over the Internet. Only new “children” born after the flag is on will possess the isolated genome. You access the setting through the Azure Portal—or, if you enjoy scripts more than screenshots, via PowerShell or AzCLI. In the portal, scroll to your subscription, open Preview features, and search for NetworkIso. You’ll find an entry called Enable Application Gateway network isolation. Click Register, wait a few minutes while Azure pretends to file paperwork, and congratulations: your subscription is now isolation‑capable. No restar

    ٢٣ من الدقائق
  4. Your Fabric Data Lake Is Too Slow: The NVMe Fix

    قبل يوم واحد

    Your Fabric Data Lake Is Too Slow: The NVMe Fix

    Opening: “Your Data Lake Has a Weight Problem” Most Fabric deployments today are dragging their own anchors. Everyone blames the query, the spark pool, the data engineers—never the storage. But the real culprit? You’re shoveling petabytes through something that behaves like a shared drive from 2003. What’s that? Your trillion-row dataset refreshes slower than your Excel workbook from college? Precisely. See, modern Fabric and Power Platform setups rely on managed storage tiers—easy, elastic, and, unfortunately, lethargic. Each request canyon‑echoes across the network before anything useful happens. All those CPUs and clever pipelines are idling, politely waiting on the filesystem to respond. The fix isn’t more nodes or stronger compute. It’s proximity. When data sits closer to the processor, everything accelerates. That’s what Azure Container Storage v2 delivers, with its almost unfair advantage: local NVMe disks. Think of it as strapping rockets to your data lake. By the end of this, your workloads will sprint instead of crawl. Section 1: Why Fabric and Power Platform Feel Slow Let’s start with the illusion of power. You spin up Fabric, provision a lakehouse, connect Power BI, deploy pipelines—and somehow it all feels snappy… until you hit scale. Then, latency starts leaking into every layer. Cold path queries crawl. Spark operations shimmer with I/O stalls. Even “simple” joins act like they’re traveling through a congested VPN. The reason is embarrassingly physical: your compute and your data aren’t in the same room. Managed storage sounds glamorous—elastic capacity, automatic redundancy, regional durability—but each of those virtues adds distance. Every read or write becomes a small diplomatic mission through Azure’s network stack. The CPU sends a request, the storage service negotiates, data trickles back through virtual plumbing, and congratulations—you’ve just paid for hundreds of milliseconds of bureaucracy. Multiply that by millions of operations per job, and your “real-time analytics” have suddenly time-traveled to yesterday. Compare that to local NVMe storage. Managed tiers behave like postal services: reliable, distributed, and painfully slow when you’re in a hurry. NVMe, though, speaks directly to the server’s PCIe lanes—the computational equivalent of whispering across a table instead of mailing a letter. The speed difference isn’t mystical; it’s logistical. Where managed disks cap IOPS in the tens or hundreds of thousands, local NVMe easily breaks into the millions. Five GB per second reads aren’t futuristic—they’re Tuesday afternoons. Here’s the paradox: scaling up your managed storage costs you more and slows you down. Every time you chase performance by adding nodes, you multiply the data paths, coordination overhead, and, yes, the bill. Azure charges for egress; apparently, physics charges for latency. You’re not upgrading your system—you’re feeding a very polite bottleneck. What most administrators miss is that nothing is inherently wrong with Fabric or Power Platform. Their architecture expects closeness. It’s your storage choice that creates long-distance relationships between compute and data. Imagine holding a conversation through walkie-talkies while sitting two desks apart. That delay, the awkward stutter—that’s your lakehouse right now. So when your Power BI dashboard takes twenty seconds to refresh, don’t blame DAX or Copilot. Blame the kilometers your bytes travel before touching a processor. The infrastructure isn’t slow. It’s obediently obeying a disastrous topology. Your data is simply too far from where the thinking happens. Section 2: Enter Azure Container Storage v2 Enter Azure Container Storage v2, Microsoft’s latest attempt to end your I/O agony. It’s not an upgrade; it’s surgery. The first version, bless its heart, was a Frankenstein experiment—a tangle of local volume managers, distributed metadata databases, and polite latency that no one wanted to talk about. Version two threw all of that out the airlock. No LVM. No etcd. No excuses. It’s lean, rewritten from scratch, and tuned for one thing only: raw performance. Now, a quick correction before the average administrator hyperventilates. You might remember the phrase “ephemeral storage” from ACStor v1 and dismiss it as “temporary, therefore useless.” Incorrect. Ephemeral didn’t mean pointless; it meant local, immediate, and blazing fast—perfect for workloads that didn’t need to survive an apocalypse. V2 doubles down on that idea. It’s built entirely around local NVMe disks, the kind soldered onto the very servers running your containers. The point isn’t durability; it’s speed without taxes. Managed disks? Gone. Yes, entirely removed from ACStor’s support matrix. Microsoft knew you already had a dozen CSI drivers for those, each with more knobs than sense. What customers actually used—and what mattered—was the ephemeral storage, the one that let containers scream instead of whisper. V2 focuses exclusively on that lane. If your node doesn’t have NVMe, it’s simply not invited to the party. Underneath it all, ACStor v2 still talks through the standard Container Storage Interface, that universal translator Kubernetes uses to ask politely for space. Microsoft, being generous for once, even open‑sourced the local storage driver that powers it. The CSI layer means it behaves like any other persistent volume—just with reflexes of a racehorse. The driver handles the plumbing; you enjoy the throughput. And here’s where it gets delicious: automatic RAID striping. Every NVMe disk on your node is treated as a teammate, pooled together and striped in unison. No parity, no redundancy—just full bandwidth, every lane open. The result? Every volume you carve, no matter how small, enjoys the combined performance of the entire set of disks. It’s like buying one concert ticket and getting the whole orchestra. Two NVMes might give you a theoretical million IOPS. Four could double that. All while Azure politely insists you’re using the same hardware you were already paying for. Let’s talk eligibility, because not every VM deserves this level of competence. You’ll find the NVMe gifts primarily in the L‑series machines—Azure’s storage‑optimized line designed for high I/O workloads. That includes the Lsv3 and newer variants. Then there are the NC series, GPU‑accelerated beasts built for AI and high‑throughput analytics. Even some Dv6 and E‑class VMs sneak in local NVMe as “temporary disks.” Temporary, yes. Slow, no. Each offers sub‑millisecond latency and multi‑gigabyte‑per‑second throughput without renting a single managed block. And the cost argument evaporates. Using local NVMe costs you nothing extra; it’s already baked into the VM price. You’re quite literally sitting on untapped velocity. When people complain that Azure is expensive, they usually mean they’re paying for managed features they don’t need—elastic SANs, managed redundancy, disks that survive cluster death. For workloads like staging zones, temporary Spark caches, Fabric’s transformation buffers, or AI model storage, that’s wasted money. ACStor v2 liberates you from that dependency. You’re no longer obliged to rent speed you already own. So what you get is brutally simple: localized data paths, zero extra cost, and performance that rivals enterprise flash arrays. You remove the middlemen—no SAN controllers, no network hops, no storage gateways—and connect compute directly to the bytes that fuel it. Think of it as stripping latency fat off your infrastructure diet. Most of all, ACStor v2 reframes how you think about cloud storage. It doesn’t fight the hardware abstraction layer; it pierces it. Kubernetes persists, Azure orchestrates, but your data finally moves at silicon speed. That’s not a feature upgrade—that’s an awakening. Section 3: The NVMe Fix—How Local Storage Outruns the Cloud OK, let’s dissect the magic word everyone keeps whispering in performance circles—NVMe. It sounds fancy, but at its core, it’s just efficiency, perfected. Most legacy storage systems use protocols like AHCI, which serialize everything—one lane, one car at a time. NVMe throws that model in the trash. It uses parallel queues, directly mapped to the CPU’s PCIe lanes. Translation: instead of a single checkout line at the grocery store, you suddenly have thousands, all open, all scanning groceries at once. That’s not marketing hype—it’s electrical reality. Now compare that to managed storage. Managed storage is… bureaucracy with disks. Every read or write travels through virtual switches, hypervisor layers, service fabrics, load balancers, and finally lands on far‑away media. It’s the postal service of data: packages get delivered, sure, but you wouldn’t trust it with your split‑second cache operations. NVMe, on the other hand, is teleportation. No queues, no customs, no middle management—just your data appearing where it’s needed. It’s raw PCIe bandwidth turning latency into an urban legend. And here’s the kicker: ACStor v2 doesn’t make NVMe faster—it unleashes it. Remember that automatic RAID striping from earlier? Picture several NVMe drives joined in perfect harmony. RAID stripes data across every disk simultaneously, meaning reads and writes occur in parallel. You lose redundancy, yes, but gain a tsunami of throughput. Essentially, each disk handles a fraction of the workload, so the ensemble performs at orchestra tempo. The result is terrifyingly good: in Microsoft’s own internal benchmarking, two NVMe drives hit around 1.2 million input/output operations per second with a throughput of roughly five gigabytes per second. That’s the sort of number that makes enterprise arrays blush. To visualize it, think of Spark running its temporary shuffles, those massive in

    ٢١ من الدقائق
  5. Stop Paying the Multi-Cloud Network Tax

    قبل يوم واحد

    Stop Paying the Multi-Cloud Network Tax

    Everyone says they love multi‑cloud—until the invoice arrives. The marketing slides promised agility and freedom. The billing portal delivered despair. You thought connecting Azure, AWS, and GCP would make your environment “resilient.” Instead, you’ve built a networking matryoshka doll—three layers of identical pipes, each pretending to be mission‑critical. The truth is, your so‑called freedom is just complexity with better branding. You’re paying three providers for the privilege of moving the same gigabyte through three toll roads. And each insists the others are the problem. Here’s what this video will do: expose where the hidden “multi‑cloud network tax” lives—in your latency, your architecture, and worst of all, your interconnect billing. The cure isn’t a shiny new service nobody’s tested. It’s understanding the physics—and the accounting—of data that crosses clouds. So let’s peel back the glossy marketing and watch what actually happens when Azure shakes hands with AWS and GCP. Section 1 – How Multi‑Cloud Became a Religion Multi‑cloud didn’t start as a scam. It began as a survival instinct. After years of being told “stick with one vendor,” companies woke up one morning terrified of lock‑in. The fear spread faster than a zero‑day exploit. Boards demanded “vendor neutrality.” Architects began drawing diagrams full of arrows between logos. Thus was born the doctrine of hybrid everything. Executives adore the philosophy. It sounds responsible—diversified, risk‑aware, future‑proof. You tell investors you’re “cloud‑agnostic,” like someone bragging about not being tied down in a relationship. But under that independence statement is a complicated prenup: every cloud charges cross‑border alimony. Each platform is its own sovereign nation. Azure loves private VNets and ExpressRoute; AWS insists on VPCs and Direct Connect; GCP calls theirs VPC too, just to confuse everyone, then changes the exchange rate on you. You could think of these networks as countries with different visa policies, currencies, and customs agents. Sure, they all use IP packets, but each stamps your passport differently and adds a “service fee.” The “three passports problem” hits early. You spin up an app in Azure that needs to query a dataset in AWS and a backup bucket in GCP. You picture harmony; your network engineer pictures a migraine. Every request must leave one jurisdiction, pay export tax in egress charges, stand in a customs line at the interconnect, and be re‑inspected upon arrival. Repeat nightly if it’s automated. Now, you might say, “But competition keeps costs down, right?” In theory. In practice, each provider optimizes its pricing to discourage leaving. Data ingress is free—who doesn’t like imports?—but data egress is highway robbery. Once your workload moves significant bytes out of any cloud, the other two hit you with identical tolls for “routing convenience.” Here’s the best part—every CIO approves this grand multi‑cloud plan with champagne optimism. A few months later, the accountant quietly screams into a spreadsheet. The operational team starts seeing duplicate monitoring platforms, three separate incident dashboards, and a DNS federation setup that looks like abstract art. And yet, executives still talk about “best of breed,” while the engineers just rename error logs to “expected behavior.” This is the religion of multi‑cloud. It demands faith—faith that more providers equal more stability, faith that your team can untangle three IAM hierarchies, and faith that the next audit won’t reveal triple billing for the same dataset. The creed goes: thou shalt not be dependent on one cloud, even if it means dependence on three others. Why do smart companies fall for it? Leverage. Negotiation chips. If one provider raises prices, you threaten to move workloads. It’s a power play, but it ignores physics—moving terabytes across continents is not a threat; it’s a budgetary self‑immolation. You can’t bluff with latency. Picture it: a data analytics pipeline spanning all three hyperscalers. Azure holds the ingestion logic, AWS handles machine learning, and GCP stores archives. It looks sophisticated enough to print on investor decks. But underneath that graphic sits a mesh of ExpressRoute, Direct Connect, and Cloud Interconnect circuits—each billing by distance, capacity, and cheerfully vague “port fees.” Every extra gateway, every second provider monitoring tool, every overlapping CIDR range adds another line to the invoice and another failure vector. Multi‑cloud evolved from a strategy into superstition: if one cloud fails, at least another will charge us more to compensate. Here’s what most people miss: redundancy is free inside a single cloud region across availability zones. The moment you cross clouds, redundancy becomes replication, and replication becomes debt—paid in dollars and milliseconds. So yes, multi‑cloud offers theoretical freedom. But operationally, it’s the freedom to pay three ISPs, three security teams, and three accountants. We’ve covered why companies do it. Next, we’ll trace an actual packet’s journey between these digital borders and see precisely where that freedom turns into the tariff they don’t include in the keynote slides. Section 2 – The Hidden Architecture of a Multi‑Cloud Handshake When Azure talks to AWS, it’s not a polite digital handshake between equals. It’s more like two neighboring countries agreeing to connect highways—but one drives on the left, the other charges per axle, and both send you a surprise invoice for “administrative coordination.” Here’s what actually happens. In Azure, your virtual network—the VNet—is bound to a single region. AWS uses a Virtual Private Cloud, or VPC, bound to its own region. GCP calls theirs a VPC too, as if a shared name could make them compatible. It cannot. Each one is a sovereign network space, guarded by its respective gateway devices and connected to its provider’s global backbone. To route data between them, you have to cross a neutral zone called a Point of Presence, or PoP. Picture an international airport where clouds trade packets instead of passengers. Microsoft’s ExpressRoute, Amazon’s Direct Connect, and Google’s Cloud Interconnect all terminate at these PoPs—carrier‑neutral facilities owned by colocation providers like Equinix or Megaport. These are the fiber hotels of the internet, racks of routers stacked like bunk beds for global data. Traffic leaves Azure’s pristine backbone, enters a dusty hallway of cross‑connect cables, and then climbs aboard AWS’s network on the other side. You pay each landlord separately: one for Microsoft’s port, one for Amazon’s port, and one for the privilege of existing between them. There’s no magic tunnel that silently merges networks. There’s only light—literal light—traveling through glass fibers, obeying physics while your budget evaporates. Each gigabyte takes the scenic route through bureaucracy and optics. Providers call it “private connectivity.” Accountants call it “billable.” Think of the journey like shipping containers across three customs offices. Your Azure app wants to send data to an AWS service. At departure, Azure charges for egress—the export tariff. The data is inspected at the PoP, where interconnect partners charge “handling fees.” Then AWS greets it with free import, but only after you’ve paid everyone else. Multiply this by nightly sync jobs, analytics pipelines, and cross‑cloud API calls, and you’ve built a miniature global trade economy powered by metadata and invoices. You do have options, allegedly. Option one: a site‑to‑site VPN. It’s cheap and quick—about as secure as taping two routers back‑to‑back and calling it enterprise connectivity. It tunnels through the public internet, wrapped in IPsec encryption, but you still rely on shared pathways where latency jitters like a caffeine addict. Speeds cap around a gigabit per second, assuming weather and whimsy cooperate. It’s good for backup or experimentation, terrible for production workloads that expect predictable throughput. Option two: private interconnects like ExpressRoute and Direct Connect. Those give you deterministic performance at comically nondeterministic pricing. You’re renting physical ports at the PoP, provisioning circuits from multiple telecom carriers, and managing Microsoft‑ or Amazon‑side gateway resources just to create what feels like a glorified Ethernet cable. FastPath, the Azure feature that lets traffic bypass a gateway to cut latency, is a fine optimization—like removing a tollbooth from an otherwise expensive freeway. But it doesn’t erase the rest of the toll road. Now layer in topology. A proper enterprise network uses a hub‑and‑spoke model. The hub contains your core resources, security appliances, and outbound routes. The spokes—individual VNets or VPCs—peer with the hub to gain access. Add multiple clouds, and each one now has its own hub. Connect these hubs together, and you stack delay upon delay, like nesting dolls again but made of routers. Every hop adds microseconds and management overhead. Engineers eventually build “super‑hubs” or “transit centers” to simplify routing, which sounds tidy until billing flows through it like water through a leaky pipe. You can route through SD‑WAN overlays to mask the complexity, but that’s cosmetic surgery, not anatomy. The packets still travel the same geographic distance, bound by fiber realities. Electricity moves near the speed of light; invoices move at the speed of “end of month.” Let’s not forget DNS. Every handshake assumes both clouds can resolve each other’s private names. Without consistent name resolution, TLS connections collapse in confusion. Engineers end up forwarding DN

    ٢٣ من الدقائق
  6. Master Internal Newsletters With Outlook

    قبل يومين

    Master Internal Newsletters With Outlook

    Opening – Hook + Teaching Promise Most internal company updates suffer the same tragic fate—posted in Teams, immediately buried by “quick question” pings and emoji reactions. The result? Critical updates vanish into digital noise before anyone even scrolls. There’s a simpler path. Outlook, the tool you already use every day, can quietly become your broadcast system: branded, consistent, measurable. You don’t need new software. You have Exchange. You have distribution groups. You have automation built into Microsoft 365—you just haven’t wired it all together yet. In the next few minutes, I’ll show you exactly how to build a streamlined newsletter pipeline inside M365: define your target audiences using Dynamic Distribution Groups, send from a shared mailbox for consistent branding, and track engagement using built‑in analytics. Clean, reliable, scalable. No external platforms, no noise. Let’s start at the root problem—most internal communications fail because nobody clarifies who the updates are actually for. Section 1 – Build the Foundation: Define & Target Audiences Audience definition is the part everyone skips. The instinct is to shove announcements into the “All Staff” list and call it inclusive. It’s not. It’s lazy. When everyone receives everything, relevance dies, and attention follows. You don’t need a thousand readers; you need the right hundred. That’s where Exchange’s Dynamic Distribution Groups come in. Dynamic Groups are rule‑based audiences built from Azure Active Directory attributes—essentially, self‑updating mailing lists. Define one rule for “Department equals HR,” another for “Office equals London,” and a third for “License type equals E5.” Exchange then handles who belongs, updating automatically as people join, move, or leave. No manual list editing, no “Who added this intern to Executive Announcements?” drama. These attributes live inside Azure AD because, frankly, Microsoft likes order. Each user record includes department, title, region, and manager relationships. You’re simply telling Exchange to filter users using those properties. For example, set a dynamic group called “Sales‑West,” rule: Department equals Sales AND Office starts with ‘West’. People who move between regions switch groups automatically. That’s continuous hygiene without administrative suffering. For stable or curated audiences—like a leadership insider group or CSR volunteers—Dynamic rules are overkill. Use traditional Distribution Lists. They’re static by design: the membership doesn’t change unless an administrator adjusts it. It’s perfect for invitations, pilot teams, or any scenario where you actually want strict control. Think of Dynamic as the irrigation system and traditional Distribution Lists as watering cans. Both deliver; one just automates the tedium. Avoid overlap. Never nest dynamic and static groups without checking membership boundaries, or you’ll double‑send and trigger the “Why did I get this twice?” complaints. Use clear naming conventions: prefix dynamic groups with DG‑Auto and static ones with DL‑Manual. Keep visibility private unless the team explicitly needs to see these lists in the global address book. Remember: discovery equals misuse. The result is calm segmentation. HR newsletters land only with HR. Regional sales digests reach their territories without polluting everyone’s inbox. The right message finds the right people automatically. And once your audiences self‑maintain, the whole communication rhythm stabilizes—you can finally trust your send lists instead of praying. Now that you know exactly who will receive your newsletter, it’s time to define a single, consistent voice behind it. Because nothing undermines professionalism faster than half a dozen senders all claiming to represent “Communications.” Once you establish a proper sender identity, everything clicks—from trust to tracking. Section 2 – Establish the Sender Identity: Shared Mailbox & Permissions Let’s deal with the most embarrassing problem first: sending from individual mailboxes. Every company has that one person who fires the “Team Update” from their personal Outlook account—subject line in Comic Sans energy—even when they mean well. The problem isn’t just aesthetic; it’s operational. When the sender goes on leave, changes roles, or, heaven forbid, leaves the company, the communication channel collapses. Replies go to a void. Continuity dies. A proper internal newsletter needs an institutional identity—something people recognize the moment they see it in their inbox. That’s where the shared mailbox comes in. In Exchange Admin Center, create one for your program—“news@company.com,” “updates@orgname,” or if you prefer flair, “inside@company.” The name doesn’t matter; consistency does. This mailbox is the company’s broadcast persona, not a person. Once created, configure “Send As” and “Send on Behalf of” permissions. The difference matters. “Send As” means the message truly originates from the shared address—completely impersonated. “Send on Behalf” attaches a trace of the sender like a return address: “Alex Wilson on behalf of News@Company.” Use the latter when you want transparency of authorship, the former when you want unified branding. For regular bulletins, “Send As” usually keeps things clean. Grant these permissions to your communications team, HR team, or anyone responsible for maintaining the cadence. Now, folders. Because every publication, even an internal one, accumulates the detritus of feedback and drafts. In the shared mailbox, create a “Drafts” folder for upcoming editions, a “Published” folder for archives, and an “Incoming Replies” folder with clean rules that categorize responses. Use Outlook’s built-in Rules and Categories to triage automatically—mark OOF replies as ignored, tag genuine comments for the editor, and file analytics notifications separately. This is your miniature publishing hub. Enable the shared calendar, too. That’s where the editorial team schedules editions. Mark send dates, review days, and submission cutoffs. It’s not glamorous, but when your next issue’s reminder pops up at 10 a.m. Monday, you’ll suddenly look terrifyingly organized. Let’s not forget compliance. Apply retention and archiving policies so nothing accidentally disappears. Internal newsletters qualify as formal communication under many governance policies. Configure the mailbox to retain sent items indefinitely or at least per your compliance team’s retention window. That also gives you searchable institutional memory—instantly retrievable context when someone asks, “Didn’t we announce this already in April?” Yes. And here’s the proof. Finally, avoid rookie traps. Don’t set automatic replies from the shared mailbox; you’ll create infinite loops of “Thank you for your email” between systems. Restrict forwarding to external addresses to prevent leaks. And disable public visibility unless the whole organization must discover it—let trust come from the content, not accidental access. By now, you have a consistent voice, a neat publishing archive, and shared team control. Congratulations—you’ve just removed the two biggest failure points of internal communication: mixed branding and personal dependency. Now we can address how that voice looks when it speaks. Visual consistency is not vanity; it’s reinforcement of authority. Section 3 – Design & Compose: Create the Newsletter Template The moment someone opens your message, design dictates whether they keep reading. Outlook, bless it, is not famous for beauty—but with discipline, you can craft clarity. The rule: simple, branded, repeatable. You’re not designing a marketing brochure; you’re designing recognition. Start with a reusable Outlook template. Open a new message from your shared mailbox, switch to the “View” tab, and load the HTML theme or stationery that defines your brand palette—company colors, typography equivalents, and a clear header image. Save it as an Outlook Template file (*.oft). This becomes your default canvas for every edition. Inside that layout, divide content into predictable blocks. At the top, a short banner or headline zone—no taller than 120 pixels—so it still looks right in preview panes. Below that, your opening paragraph: a concise summary of what’s inside. Never rely on the subject line alone; people scan by body preview in Outlook’s message list. If the first two lines look like something corporate sent under duress, they’ll skip it. Follow that with modular blocks: one for HR, one for Sales, one for IT. These sections aren’t random—they mirror the organizational silos that your Dynamic Groups target. Use subtle colored borders or headings for consistency. Include one clear call‑to‑action per section—“Access the HR Portal,” “View Q3 Targets,” “Review Maintenance Window.” Avoid turning the email into a link farm; prioritize two or three actions max. At the bottom, include a consistent footer—company logo, confidentiality line, and a “Sent via Outlook Newsletter” tag with the shared mailbox address. You’re not hiding that this is internal automation; you’re validating it. Regulatory disclaimers or internal-only markings can live here too. To maintain branding integrity, store the master template on SharePoint or Teams within your communications space. Version it. Rename each revision clearly—“NewsletterTemplate_v3_July2024”—and restrict edit rights to your design custodian. When someone inevitably decides to “improve” the font by changing it to whatever’s trendy that week, you’ll know exactly who disrupted the consistency. For actual composing, Outlook’s modern editor supports HTML snippets. You can drop in tables for structured content, inse

    ٢٢ من الدقائق
  7. Master Dataverse Security: Stop External Leaks Now

    قبل يومين

    Master Dataverse Security: Stop External Leaks Now

    Opening – The Corporate Leak You Didn’t See Coming Let’s start with a scene. A vendor logs into your company’s shiny new Power App—supposed to manage purchase orders, nothing more. But somehow, that same guest account wanders a little too far and stumbles into a Dataverse table containing executive performance data. Salaries, evaluations, maybe a few “candid” notes about the CFO’s management style. Congratulations—you’ve just leaked internal data, and it didn’t even require hacking. The problem? Everyone keeps treating Dataverse like SharePoint. They assume “permissions” equal “buckets of access,” so they hand out roles like Halloween candy. What they forget is that Dataverse is not a document library; it’s a relational fortress built on scoped privileges and defined hierarchies. Ignore that, and you’re effectively handing visitor passes to your treasury. Dataverse security isn’t complicated—it’s just precise. And precision scares people. Let’s tear down the myths one layer at a time. Section 1 – The Architecture of Trust: How Dataverse Actually Manages Security Think of Dataverse as a meticulously engineered castle. It’s not one big door with one big key—it’s a maze of gates, guards, courtyards, and watchtowers. Every open path is intentional. Every privilege—Create, Read, Write, Delete, Append, Append To, Assign, and Share—is like a specific key that opens a specific gate. Yet most administrators toss all the keys to everyone, then act surprised when the peasants reach the royal library. Let’s start at the top: Users, Teams, Security Roles, and Business Units. Those four layers define who you are, what you can do, where you can do it, and which lineage of the organization you belong to. This is not merely classification—it’s containment. A User is simple: an identity within your environment, usually tied to Entra ID. A Team is a collection of users bound to a security role. Think of a Team like a regiment in our castle—soldiers who share the same clearance level. The Security Role defines privileges at a granular level, like “Read Contacts” or “Write to a specific table.” The Business Unit? That’s the physical wall of the castle—the zone of governance that limits how far you can roam. Now, privileges are where most people’s understanding falls off a cliff. Each privilege has a scope—User, Business Unit, Parent:Child, or Organization. Think of “scope” as the radius of your power. * User scope means you control only what you personally own. * Business Unit extends that control to everything inside your local territory. * Parent:Child cascades downward—you can act across your domain and all its subdomains. * Organization? That’s the nuclear option: full access to every record, in every corner of the environment. When roles get assigned with “Organization” scope across mixed internal and external users, something terrifying happens: Dataverse stops caring who owns what. Guests suddenly can see everything, often without anyone realizing it. It’s like issuing master keys to visiting musicians because they claim they’ll only use the ballroom. Misalignment usually comes from lazy configuration. Most admins reason, “If everyone has organization-level read, data sharing will be easier.” Sure, easier—to everyone. The truth? Efficiency dies the moment external users appear. A single organizational-scope privilege defeats your careful environment separation, because the Dataverse hierarchy trusts your role definitions absolutely. It doesn’t argue; it executes. Here’s how the hierarchy actually controls visibility. Business Units form a tree. At the top, usually “Root,” sit your global admins. Under that, branches for departments or operating regions, each with child units. Users belong to exactly one Business Unit at a time—like residents locked inside their section of the castle. When you grant scope at the “Business Unit” level, a user sees their realm but not others. Grant “Parent:Child,” and they see their kingdom plus every village below it. Grant “Organization,” and—surprise—they now have a spyglass overlooking all of Dataverse. Here’s where the conceptual mistake occurs. People assume roles layer together like SharePoint permissions—give a narrow one, add a broad one, and Dataverse will average them out. Wrong. Roles in Dataverse combine privileges additively. The broadest privilege overrides the restrictive ones. If a guest owns two roles—one scoped to their Business Unit and another with Organization-level read—they inherit the broader power. Or in castle terms: one stolen master key beats fifty locked doors. Now, add Teams. A guest may join a project team that owns specific records. If that team’s role accidentally inherits higher privileges, every guest in that team sees far more than they should. Inheritance is powerful, but also treacherous. That’s why granular layering matters—assign user-level roles for regular access and use teams only for specific, temporary visibility. Think of the scope system as concentric rings radiating outward. The inner ring—User scope—is safest, private ownership. The next ring—Business Unit—expands collaboration inside departments. The third ring—Parent:Child—covers federated units like regional offices under corporate control. And beyond that outer ring—Organization—lies the open field, where anything left unguarded can be seen by anyone with the wrong configuration. The castle walls don’t matter if you’ve just handed your enemy the surveyor’s map. Another classic blunder: cloning system administrator roles for testing. That creates duplicate “superuser” patterns everywhere. Suddenly the intern who’s “testing an app” holds Organization-level privilege over customer data. Half the security incidents in Dataverse environments result not from hacking, but from convenience. What you need to remember—and this is the dry but crucial part—is that Dataverse’s architecture of trust is mathematical. Each privilege assignment is a Boolean value: you either have access or you do not. There’s no “probably safe” middle ground. You can’t soft-fence external users; you have to architect their isolation through Business Units and minimize their privileges to what they demonstrably need. To summarize this foundation without ruining the mystery of the next section: Users and Teams define identities, Security Roles define rights, and Business Units define boundaries. The mistake that creates leaks isn’t ignorance—it’s false confidence. People assume Dataverse forgives imprecision. It doesn’t. It obediently enforces whatever combination of roles you define. Now that you understand that structure, we can safely move from blueprints to battlefield—seeing what actually happens when those configurations collide. Or, as I like to call it, “breaking the castle to understand why it leaks.” Section 2 – The Leak in Action: Exposing the Vendor Portal Fiasco Let’s reenact the disaster. You build a vendor portal. The goal is simple—vendors should update purchase orders and see their own invoices. You create a “Vendor Guest” role and, to save time, clone it from the standard “Salesperson” role. After all, both deal with contacts and accounts, right? Except, small difference: Salesperson roles often have Parent:Child or even Organization-level access to the Contact table. The portal doesn’t know your intent; it just follows those permissions obediently. The vendor logs in. Behind the scenes, Dataverse checks which records this guest can read. Because their security role says “Read Contacts: Parent:Child,” Dataverse happily serves up all contacts under the parent business unit—the one your internal sales team lives under. In short: the vendor just inherited everyone’s address book. Now, picture what that looks like in the front-end Power App you proudly shipped. The app pulls data through Dataverse views. Those views aren’t filtering by ownership because you trusted role boundaries. So that helpful “My Clients” gallery now lists clients from every region, plus internal test data, partner accounts, executive contacts, maybe even HR records if they also share the same root table. You didn’t code the leak; you configured it. Here’s how it snowballs. Business Units in Dataverse often sit in hierarchy: “Corporate” at the top, “Departments” beneath, “Projects” below that. When you assign a guest to the “Vendors” business unit but give their role privileges scoped at Parent:Child, they can see every record the top business unit owns—and all its child units. The security model assumes you’re granting that intentionally. Dataverse doesn’t second-guess your trust. The ugly part: these boundaries cascade across environments. Export that role as a managed solution and import it into production, and you just replicated the flaw. Guests in your staging environment now have the same privileges as guests in production. And because many admins skip per-environment security audits, you’ll only discover this when a vendor politely asks why they can view “Corporate Credit Risk” data alongside invoice approvals. Now, let’s illustrate correct versus incorrect scopes without the whiteboard.In the incorrect setup, your guest has “Read” at the Parent:Child or Organization level. Dataverse returns every record the parent unit knows about. In the correct setup, “Read” is scoped to User, plus selective Share privileges for records you explicitly assign. The result? The guest’s Power App now displays only their owned vendor record—or any record an internal user specifically shared. This difference feels microscopic in configuration but enormous in consequence. Think of it like DNS misconfiguration: swap two values, and suddenly traffic answers from the wrong zone. Sa

    ١٩ من الدقائق
  8. Stop Using Power BI Wrong: The $10,000 Data Model Fix

    قبل ٣ أيام

    Stop Using Power BI Wrong: The $10,000 Data Model Fix

    Opening – The $10,000 Problem Your Power BI dashboard is lying to you. Not about the numbers—it’s lying about the cost. Every time someone hits “refresh,” every time a slicer moves, you’re quietly paying a performance tax. And before you smirk, yes, you are paying it, whether through wasted compute time, overage on your Power BI Premium capacity, or the hours your team spends waiting for that little yellow spinner to go away. Inefficient data models are invisible budget vampires. Every bloated column and careless join siphons money from your department. And when I say “money,” I mean real money—five figures a year for some companies. That’s the $10,000 problem. The fix isn’t a plug‑in, and it’s not hidden in the latest update. It’s architectural—a redesign of how your model thinks. By the end, you’ll know how to build a Power BI model that runs faster, costs less, and survives real enterprise workloads without crying for mercy. Section 1 – The Inefficiency Tax Think of your data model like a kitchen. A good chef arranges knives, pans, and spices so they can reach everything in two steps. A bad chef dumps everything into one drawer and hopes for the best. Most Power BI users? They’re the second chef—except their “drawer” is an imported Excel file from 2017, stuffed with fifty columns nobody remembers adding. This clutter is what we call technical debt. It’s all the shortcuts, duplicates, and half‑baked relationships that make your model work “for now” but break everything six months later. Every query in that messy model wanders the kitchen hunting for ingredients. Every refresh is another hour of the engine rummaging through the junk drawer. And yes, I know why you did it. You clicked “Import” on the entire SQL table because it was easier than thinking about what you actually needed. Or maybe you built calculated columns for everything because “that’s how Excel works.” Congratulations—you’ve just graduated from spreadsheet hoarder to BI hoarder. Those lazy choices have consequences. Power BI stores each unnecessary column, duplicates the data in the model, and expands memory use exponentially. Every time you add a fancy visual calling fifteen columns, your refresh slows. Slow refreshes become delayed dashboards; delayed dashboards mean slower decisions. Multiply that delay across two hundred analysts, and you’ll understand why your cloud bill resembles a ransom note. The irony? It’s not Power BI’s fault. It’s yours. The engine is fast. The DAX engine is clever. But your model? It’s a tangle of spaghetti code disguised as business insight. Ready to fix it? Good. Let’s rebuild your model like an adult. Section 2 – The Fix: Dimensional Modeling Dimensional modeling, also known as the Star Schema, is what separates a Power BI professional from a Power BI hobbyist. It’s the moment when your chaotic jumble of Excel exports grows up and starts paying rent. Here’s how it works. At the center of your star is a Fact Table—the raw events or transactions. Think of it as your receipts. Each record represents something that happened: a sale, a shipment, a login, whatever your business actually measures. Around that core, you build Dimension Tables—the dictionary that describes those receipts. Product, Customer, Date, Region—each gets its own neat dimension. This is the difference between hoarding and organization. Instead of stacking every possible field inside one table, you separate descriptions from events. The fact table stays lean: tons of rows, few columns. The dimensions stay wide: fewer rows, but rich descriptions. It’s relational modeling the way nature intended. Now, some of you get creative and build “many‑to‑many” relationships because you saw it once in a forum. Stop. That’s not creativity—that’s self‑harm. In a proper star, all relationships are one‑to‑many, pointing outward from dimension to fact. The dimension acts like a lookup—one Product can appear in many Sales, but each Sale points to exactly one Product. Break that rule, and you unleash chaos on your DAX calculations. Let’s talk cardinality. Power BI hates ambiguity. When relationships aren’t clear, it wastes processing power guessing. Imagine trying to index a dictionary where every word appears on five random pages—it’s miserable. One‑to‑many relationships give the engine a direct path. It knows exactly which filter context applies to which fact—no debates, no circular dependencies, no wasted CPU cycles pretending to be Sherlock Holmes. And while we’re cleaning up, stop depending on “natural keys.” Your “ProductName” might look unique until someone adds a space or mis‑types a letter. Instead, create surrogate keys—numeric or GUID IDs that uniquely identify each row. They’re lighter and safer, like nametags for your data. Maybe you’re wondering, “Why bother with all this structure?” Because structured models scale. The DAX engine doesn’t have to guess your intent; it reads the star and obeys simple principles: one direction, one filter, one purpose. Measures finally return results you can trust. Suddenly, your dashboards refresh in five minutes instead of an hour, and you can remove that awkward ‘Please wait while loading’ pop‑up your team pretends not to see. Here’s the weird part—once you move to a star schema, everything else simplifies. Calculated columns? Mostly irrelevant. Relationships? Predictable. Even your DAX gets cleaner because context is clearly defined. You’ll spend less time debugging relationships and more time actually analyzing numbers. Think of your new model as a modular house: each dimension a neat, labeled room; the fact table, the main hallway connecting them all. Before, you had a hoarder’s flat where you tripped over data every time you moved. Now, everything has its place, and the performance difference feels like you just upgraded from a landline modem to fiber optics. When you run this properly, Power BI’s Vertipaq engine compresses your model efficiently because the columnar storage finally makes sense. Duplicate text fields vanish, memory usage drops, and visuals render faster than your executives can say, “Can you export that to Excel?” But don’t celebrate yet. A clean model is only half the equation. The other half lives in the logic—the DAX layer. It’s where good intentions often become query‑level disasters. So yes, even with a star schema, you can still sabotage performance with what I lovingly call “DAX gymnastics.” In other words, it’s time to learn some discipline—because the next section is where we separate the data artists from the financial liabilities. Section 3 – DAX Discipline & Relationship Hygiene Yes, your DAX is clever. No, it’s not efficient. Clever DAX is like an overengineered Rube Goldberg machine—you’re impressed until you realize all it does is count rows. You see, DAX isn’t supposed to be “brilliant”; it’s supposed to be fast, predictable, and boring. That’s the genius you should aspire to—boring genius. Let’s start with the foundation: row context versus filter context. They’re not twins; they’re different species. Row context is each individual record being evaluated—think of it like taking attendance in a classroom. Filter context is the entire class after you’ve told everyone wearing red shirts to leave. Most people mix them up, then wonder why their SUMX runs like a snail crossing molasses. The rule? When you iterate—like SUMX or FILTER—you’re creating row context. When you use CALCULATE, you’re changing the filter context. Know which one you’re touching, or Power BI will happily drain your CPU while pretending to understand you. The greatest performance crime in DAX is calculated columns. They feel familiar because Excel had them—one formula stretched down an entire table. But in Power BI, that column is persisted; it bloats your dataset permanently. Every refresh recalculates it row by row. If your dataset has ten million rows, congratulations, you’ve just added ten million unnecessary operations to every refresh. That’s the computing equivalent of frying eggs one at a time on separate pans. Instead, push that logic back where it belongs—into Power Query. Do your data shaping there, where transformations happen once at load time, not repeatedly during report render. Let M language do the heavy lifting; it’s designed for preprocessing. The DAX engine should focus on computation during analysis, not household chores during refresh. Then there’s the obsession with writing sprawling, nested measures that reference one another eight layers deep. That’s not “modular,” that’s “recursive suffering.” Every dependency means another context transition the engine must trace. Instead, create core measures—like Total Sales or Total Cost—and build higher‑order ones logically on top. CALCULATE is your friend; it’s the clean switchboard operator of DAX. When used well, it rewires filters efficiently without dragging the entire model into chaos. Iterator functions—SUMX, AVERAGEX—are fine when used sparingly, but most users weaponize them unnecessarily. They iterate row by row when a simple SUM could do the job in one columnar sweep. Vertipaq, the in‑memory engine behind Power BI, is built for columnar operations. You slow it down every time you force it to behave like Excel’s row processor. Remember: DAX doesn’t care about your creative flair; it respects efficiency and clarity. Now about relationships—those invisible lines you treat like decoration. Single‑direction filters are the rule; bidirectional is an emergency switch, not standard practice. A bidirectional relationship is like handing out master keys to interns. Sure, it’s convenient until someone deletes the customers table while filtering products. It invites ambiguity, for

    ١٤ من الدقائق

حول

The M365 Show – Microsoft 365, Azure, Power Platform & Cloud Innovation Stay ahead in the world of Microsoft 365, Azure, and the Microsoft Cloud. The M365 Show brings you expert insights, real-world use cases, and the latest updates across Power BI, Power Platform, Microsoft Teams, Viva, Fabric, Purview, Security, AI, and more. Hosted by industry experts, each episode features actionable tips, best practices, and interviews with Microsoft MVPs, product leaders, and technology innovators. Whether you’re an IT pro, business leader, developer, or data enthusiast, you’ll discover the strategies, trends, and tools you need to boost productivity, secure your environment, and drive digital transformation. Your go-to Microsoft 365 podcast for cloud collaboration, data analytics, and workplace innovation. Tune in, level up, and make the most of everything Microsoft has to offer. Visit M365.show. m365.show

قد يعجبك أيضًا