Your CFO closed the door and explained the situation: the company committed to a Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment (MACC), and IT needs to help meet that threshold. But, not with new budget, with existing spend. Every Azure service you currently use or can migrate needs to count toward that commitment.
The pressure is real: backup costs are rising, Azure commitments are ticking, and finance is watching every dollar. You need backup spending that moves you toward that MACC threshold while actually reducing total costs, not just redirecting the same budget to Azure infrastructure. Most backup solutions qualify as Azure spend but don’t optimize for cloud economics.
The mandate creates an opportunity, but only if you choose a backup architecture that leverages your Azure commitment efficiently. That difference comes down to how solutions handle retention, deduplication, and storage tiering: structural decisions that either compound costs or contain them.
Why backup storage costs compound faster than other workloads
When you protect data, you’re not storing one copy; you’re storing every version of that data for as long as your retention policies require. With a traditional full backup approach, a 100GB mailbox doesn’t consume 100GB of backup storage. It consumes 100GB multiplied by the number of backup intervals across your entire retention period. Daily backups with 90-day retention means you’re storing up to 90 versions of that mailbox, and that’s before accounting for any growth in the original data.
This multiplication effect separates backup costs from other Azure workloads. Your production databases grow, but their number remains constant over time. Your file shares expand, but you’re not keeping 60 or 90 versions of every file indefinitely. Backup storage is essential because its primary purpose is retention: preserving data states across weeks, months, or years, depending on compliance requirements and business policies.
Storage that spans multiple retention periods requires architectures designed for long-term economics. If your backup solution treats Azure as tier-one storage and keeps every version in hot or cool tiers, your costs scale exponentially as data ages. A terabyte of protected data can balloon into 10 or 20 terabytes of stored backup data. If that’s all sitting in expensive Azure storage tiers, your MACC commitment becomes a monthly cost increase instead of efficient spend.
The problem intensifies with traditional full backup approaches. When solutions perform periodic full backups rather than incremental forever architectures, you’re duplicating entire datasets multiple times per retention period. Your storage doesn’t just compound; it compounds redundantly, paying Azure rates for data that’s already been backed up and stored previously.
What traditional backup architectures do with Azure storage
Most backup vendors built their architectures in the on-premises era, when storage was a capital expense amortized over years. You bought arrays, populated them with disks, and backup software filled that capacity. The cost structure assumed you owned the storage, so treating it all as a high-performance tier made sense. Access speed mattered more than efficiency because you’d already paid for the disks.
That model breaks completely in consumption-based cloud pricing. Azure charges by the gigabyte-month, and different storage tiers have drastically different costs. Check Azure’s blob storage pricing, and you’ll see the spread: hot-tier storage runs roughly 10x the cost of archive tier for identical capacity. When traditional backup solutions replicate their on-premises patterns to Azure, they store everything in expensive hot tiers—even retention data that exists purely for compliance and will rarely be accessed.
You see this pattern when vendors migrate their existing backup engines to Azure without rearchitecting for cloud economics. They spin up Azure infrastructure, point backup agents at that storage, and replicate the same full-backup or incremental-with-fulls approach they used on-premises. The backups work fine. They just cost more because the storage architecture wasn’t designed for consumption pricing. When evaluating cloud backup strategies, understanding these structural differences helps distinguish solutions designed for Azure economics from those simply hosted in Azure.
The MACC qualification compounds the problem. Backup vendors can truthfully say their solution consumes Azure services: it does. However, consuming Azure storage inefficiently means you’re meeting your commitment by increasing your total backup costs, rather than optimizing them. You hit the threshold while paying more per protected gigabyte than you did with your previous solution.
Storage architecture approaches that reduce costs instead of redirecting them
Solutions designed for cloud storage economics start with retention awareness. They recognize that backup data has different temperature requirements: recent backups require quick access for common recovery scenarios, while older backups are primarily used for compliance and rare restores. Storage architecture should match data temperature to Azure tiers, keeping hot data accessible while automatically migrating aging backups to progressively cheaper storage as retention periods extend.
This tiering occurs based on data age and access patterns, rather than manual intervention. Your 30-day backups may be stored in cold storage to optimize recovery performance. Your 60- to 90-day backups migrate to archive tiers, where access latency is higher but storage costs drop dramatically. The system handles this automatically based on retention policies, so you don’t have to constantly manage storage placement or worry about compliance gaps.
Deduplication placement and Azure storage efficiency
Where deduplication happens determines whether it reduces Azure costs or just reduces network transfer. Client-side deduplication eliminates redundant data before it ever reaches Azure, so you’re never charged for storing duplicate blocks. Server-side deduplication stores the data first and deduplicates later; you pay for the full transfer and temporary storage even if a significant portion of that data is redundant.
The difference matters more in cloud environments than in on-premises environments. With owned storage arrays, you paid upfront regardless of efficiency. With Azure, every gigabyte transferred and stored carries per-unit costs. Deduplicating data before it reaches Azure ensures your consumption commitment is applied to unique data storage, rather than paying to store the same blocks repeatedly, as the architecture stores data first and optimizes it later.
Compression works the same way. Solutions that compress data at the source reduce the amount of data that needs to be transmitted and stored in Azure. Solutions that compress after storage optimize space, but don’t reduce your Azure spend for the initial data landing. The architectural decision about where efficiency happens determines whether it reduces your consumption or just makes existing consumption more space-efficient.
How retention policies interact with storage tier costs
Long retention periods reveal whether storage architecture was designed for backup economics or adapted from operational data patterns. If you’re keeping backups for seven years, that data needs to reside in the most cost-effective Azure storage tier that still meets compliance requirements. Hot storage for seven-year-old backups is architecturally wrong: you’re paying premium rates for data that will almost certainly never be accessed outside an audit or legal hold.
Solutions built for retention economics automatically handle this migration. Your retention policy states that backups should be kept for seven years, and the architecture ensures that year-old data isn’t occupying the same Azure storage tier as yesterday’s backups. You’re consuming Azure services across the retention period, but the consumption is optimized for actual data temperature rather than treating all backup data identically.
This approach also handles data growth intelligently. As your protected data expands, newer backups consume more storage. But older backups have already migrated to cheap tiers, so growth doesn’t compound at hot storage rates across your entire retention period. You’re adding consumption for new data while minimizing costs for aging data, which keeps total Azure spend manageable even as backup scope increases.
How MACC qualification works with backup solutions
Azure consumption commitments track spend across specific Azure services. Storage services such as Blob Storage, including hot, cool, and archive tiers, count toward MACC thresholds. When backup solutions use these services for data storage, that consumption applies to your commitment. But the mechanism matters: you need to verify exactly which Azure services the backup vendor uses and how that spend gets reported against your commitment.
Some backup vendors conduct operations entirely within Azure infrastructure but use compute and networking resources that may not fully count toward storage-focused commitments. Others use Azure-integrated backup solutions that report storage consumption directly against your agreement. You need clarity on whether the solution is simply Azure-hosted or genuinely consuming qualifying Azure storage services.
MACC commitments typically have minimum thresholds and measurement periods. If your backup solution consumes Azure storage inefficiently, you might meet the threshold but at a higher total cost than necessary. If it consumes efficiently, you’re meeting commitments while reducing your overall backup spending, which was the original mandate. The difference comes down to whether vendors architected for Azure consumption economics or just ported existing solutions to Azure infrastructure.
Questions that separate cost reduction from budget redirection
When evaluating backup solutions that claim to help with Azure commitments, you need questions that reveal the storage architecture rather than accepting Azure compatibility claims at face value. Generic cloud efficiency promises don’t expose whether the solution genuinely reduces costs or just redirects spend to Azure.
Storage efficiency questions
Ask where deduplication happens: client-side before data reaches Azure, or server-side after storage? Client-side reduces the cost of storage. Server-side optimization occurs after you’ve already paid for initial storage.
Ask how retention policies interact with Azure storage tiers. Does data automatically migrate to cheaper tiers as it ages, or does everything sit in hot or cool storage regardless of access patterns?
Find out how full backups work in their architecture. Are they performing periodic fulls that duplicate entire data sets, or using incremental-forever approaches that store changes once and reference previous versions? The first approach multiplies storage costs across retention periods. The second contains compounding by storing each block only when it changes.
Ask about compression placement. Does compression happen before data reaches Azure, reducing transfer and storage costs immediately? Or does the data land in Azure and get compressed later, meaning you pay for the uncompressed storage initially? These architectural details determine whether efficiency reduces your Azure consumption or just organizes it more neatly after billing starts.
MACC qualification questions
You need explicit confirmation about which Azure services the solution uses and whether those services count toward your specific commitment. Ask vendors for documentation that shows how their Azure consumption aligns with MACC-qualifying services. Some commitments are broad, while others are storage-focused; verify alignment with your actual agreement terms.
Ask how consumption gets reported. Can you see backup storage spend broken out in Azure billing in a way that clearly contributes to commitment tracking? Does the vendor provide consumption reports that your finance team can reconcile against Azure invoices? Without visibility, you can’t prove that backup spending is helping meet commitments.
Find out what happens if backup consumption doesn’t fully utilize your commitment threshold. Do you need additional Azure services to close the gap? Is the backup storage enough on its own? Understanding the magnitude of backup contribution helps you plan whether it solves the entire MACC challenge or just part of it.
Meeting Azure commitment while reducing backup costs
That pressure you felt when your CFO closed the door? You can address both sides of it. Meeting your Azure commitment shouldn’t mean accepting higher backup costs just to hit consumption thresholds. The storage architecture determines whether Azure becomes an efficient platform for long-term data retention or an expensive place to replicate on-premises backup patterns. Solutions designed for cloud economics reduce total costs while qualifying for MACC: they solve both problems rather than trading one for the other.
CrashPlan optimizes backup storage specifically for Azure consumption economics, using client-side deduplication and intelligent tiering to minimize costs while automatically contributing to MACC commitments. With retention-aware architecture that matches data age to appropriate storage tiers, you’re consuming Azure services efficiently rather than just redirecting backup spend to more expensive infrastructure.
About the Author
© 2025 CrashPlan® All rights reserved.
Privacy | Legal | Cookie Notice | Free Trial