Site Recovery

199
Total Pages
64
Linux-Friendly Pages
135
Pages with Bias
67.8%
Bias Rate

Bias Trend Over Time

Pages with Bias Issues

864 issues found
Showing 401-425 of 864 flagged pages
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/physical-manage-configuration-server.md .../site-recovery/physical-manage-configuration-server.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a strong Windows bias. All prerequisites, installation instructions, and examples are exclusively for Windows Server (2012 R2, 2016), with no mention of Linux support or equivalents. Command-line and PowerShell examples are Windows-centric, and tools such as Control Panel, reg.exe, and cspsconfigtool.exe are Windows-only. There are no Linux instructions, shell examples, or references to Linux-compatible tools or environments.
Recommendations
  • Clearly state whether Linux is supported or not for the configuration server. If not supported, make this explicit early in the documentation.
  • If Linux support exists or is planned, provide equivalent Linux prerequisites (supported distributions, packages, etc.).
  • Add Linux-specific installation and registration instructions, including shell command examples and configuration steps.
  • Include Linux equivalents for Windows tools (e.g., alternatives to reg.exe, PowerShell, Control Panel).
  • Provide parity in troubleshooting, upgrade, and uninstall instructions for Linux environments.
  • Where possible, use cross-platform tools or highlight differences between Windows and Linux workflows.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/monitoring-high-churn.md ...b/main/articles/site-recovery/monitoring-high-churn.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page presents Windows monitoring tools (Resource Monitor, Performance Monitor) in greater detail and with screenshots, while Linux tools (iotop, iostat) are mentioned briefly without examples or visuals. Windows tools are described first and more comprehensively, indicating a Windows-first and Windows-tools bias. There is a lack of parity in example depth and guidance for Linux users.
Recommendations
  • Provide step-by-step instructions for using Linux monitoring tools (iotop, iostat), similar to the Windows sections.
  • Include screenshots or sample outputs for Linux tools to match the visual guidance given for Windows.
  • Mention additional Linux tools (e.g., atop, dstat, sar) for broader coverage.
  • Ensure that Linux and Windows sections are equally detailed and structured.
  • Consider presenting Windows and Linux guidance in parallel, rather than Windows-first, to avoid perceived prioritization.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-active-directory.md ...ticles/site-recovery/site-recovery-active-directory.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Powershell Heavy Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation is heavily oriented towards Windows environments, specifically Windows Server-based Active Directory and DNS. All examples, commands, and troubleshooting steps use Windows tools (e.g., NET SHARE, dcdiag, nltest, dnscmd) and reference Windows registry settings. There is no mention of Linux-based domain controllers (e.g., Samba AD DC), Linux DNS servers (e.g., BIND), or cross-platform considerations. The guidance assumes the reader is operating in a Windows-only environment, with no parity for Linux equivalents.
Recommendations
  • Add guidance and examples for disaster recovery of Samba-based Active Directory domain controllers running on Linux.
  • Include instructions for managing DNS servers running on Linux (e.g., BIND, dnsmasq) in failover scenarios.
  • Provide Linux command-line equivalents for diagnostic and recovery steps (e.g., using samba-tool, systemctl, dig, nsupdate).
  • Reference Linux file paths and configuration files where appropriate (e.g., /etc/samba/smb.conf, /etc/bind/named.conf).
  • Clarify which steps are specific to Windows and offer alternative steps for Linux environments.
  • Mention Azure support for Linux-based AD and DNS servers, if applicable, and link to relevant documentation.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-vmware-deployment-planner-run.md ...ecovery/site-recovery-vmware-deployment-planner-run.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools Windows First Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation demonstrates a strong Windows bias. All examples for generating the VM list use VMware vSphere PowerCLI (PowerShell), with no mention of Linux alternatives (such as using the vSphere CLI or Python scripts). The tool itself (ASRDeploymentPlanner.exe) is a Windows executable, and report generation explicitly requires a Windows PC or Windows Server with Excel installed. File path examples use Windows-style paths (e.g., E:\), and remote directory examples use UNC paths, which are Windows-specific. There is no guidance for running the tool or generating reports from Linux or macOS environments.
Recommendations
  • Provide Linux/macOS alternatives for generating the VM list, such as using vSphere CLI, Python scripts, or REST API calls.
  • Clarify whether the ASRDeploymentPlanner.exe tool can be run under Wine or in a VM on non-Windows platforms, or provide a cross-platform version if possible.
  • Offer guidance on how to view or process the generated Excel report on Linux/macOS (e.g., using LibreOffice, or converting to CSV).
  • Include file path examples using Linux conventions (e.g., /mnt/vcenter1_profileddata) alongside Windows paths.
  • Explicitly state platform requirements and limitations at the beginning of the documentation, and suggest workarounds for non-Windows users.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/monitor-log-analytics.md ...b/main/articles/site-recovery/monitor-log-analytics.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation exhibits a Windows bias in several areas. The instructions for installing the monitoring agent on the Process Server exclusively reference Windows Server, with no mention of Linux alternatives or agents. The agent download and configuration steps are Windows-specific, and screenshots show Windows tools (such as Windows Performance Counters). There are no examples or guidance for Linux-based Process Servers or Linux monitoring agents, nor is there mention of Linux performance counter equivalents. This may lead Linux users to believe their scenario is unsupported or less prioritized.
Recommendations
  • Add explicit instructions and examples for installing and configuring the monitoring agent on Linux-based Process Servers, including download links, workspace configuration, and any required dependencies.
  • Include screenshots and walkthroughs for Linux environments, such as using Linux performance monitoring tools (e.g., collectd, sysstat) or the OMS/Linux agent.
  • Clarify whether data churn and upload rate monitoring is supported on Linux, and if so, provide equivalent steps and queries.
  • Present both Windows and Linux instructions in parallel or indicate OS-specific steps clearly, rather than defaulting to Windows.
  • Mention any limitations or differences in monitoring capabilities between Windows and Linux Process Servers.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-iis.md .../blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-iis.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation is heavily focused on Windows environments, specifically IIS on Windows Server and related Windows-centric tools and patterns. All examples, deployment patterns, and scripting references are tailored to Windows (IIS, ARR, SQL Server, PowerShell scripts), with no mention of Linux-based web servers (such as Apache or Nginx), nor guidance for disaster recovery of Linux workloads. The scripting examples and automation references are exclusively for Windows tools, and the documentation assumes the use of Windows VMs throughout.
Recommendations
  • Include equivalent guidance and examples for Linux-based web applications (e.g., Apache, Nginx) and their disaster recovery using Azure Site Recovery.
  • Provide sample scripts for post-failover operations using Bash or other Linux-native tools, not just PowerShell.
  • Mention Linux deployment patterns and how Azure Site Recovery supports them, including configuration file updates and certificate management for Linux web servers.
  • Clarify which steps are Windows-specific and offer parallel instructions for Linux environments where applicable.
  • Add references to documentation or quickstart templates for Linux workloads to improve parity.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-sql.md .../blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-sql.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools Powershell Heavy
Summary
The documentation page demonstrates a Windows bias by referencing Windows-specific technologies and tools (e.g., Windows Failover Clustering, Task Manager, PowerShell scripts) without mentioning or providing equivalent Linux examples. All technical links and instructions focus on Windows environments, and there is no guidance for SQL Server on Linux or use of Linux-native tools. Windows terminology and patterns are used exclusively or appear first, while Linux support is not discussed.
Recommendations
  • Add explicit guidance and examples for SQL Server running on Linux, including supported disaster recovery technologies and Azure Site Recovery compatibility.
  • Provide Linux-specific instructions for monitoring disk write rates (e.g., using iostat, atop, or other Linux tools) alongside the Windows Task Manager example.
  • Include sample scripts or automation for failover using Bash or Python, and clarify how automation steps differ for Linux VMs.
  • Reference SQL Server on Linux documentation and link to relevant high availability/disaster recovery features for Linux deployments.
  • Clarify any limitations or differences in Azure Site Recovery support for Linux-based SQL Server clusters.
  • Ensure that all steps, especially those involving scripting or system tools, have Linux equivalents or note if not supported.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-deploy-configuration-server.md ...e-recovery/vmware-azure-deploy-configuration-server.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a Windows bias in several ways. The configuration server is deployed as a Windows Server 2016 VM, with instructions focused exclusively on Windows installation and management steps. Examples and instructions for installing required software (e.g., MySQL) reference Windows file paths and do not provide Linux equivalents. The documentation does not mention or provide guidance for deploying the configuration server on Linux, nor does it discuss Linux-based management or troubleshooting tools.
Recommendations
  • Provide explicit guidance for deploying the configuration server on Linux, if supported, or clarify that only Windows is supported.
  • Include Linux-specific instructions and examples for steps such as installing MySQL (e.g., using apt/yum and Linux file paths).
  • Add troubleshooting and management steps relevant to Linux environments, such as using SSH, Linux service management, and log file locations.
  • If the configuration server cannot be deployed on Linux, state this limitation clearly at the beginning of the documentation.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/upgrade-mobility-service-modernized.md ...s/site-recovery/upgrade-mobility-service-modernized.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Powershell Heavy Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation demonstrates a Windows bias in several ways: Windows update instructions and tools (e.g., Registry Editor, .msi installers, command prompt, Windows-specific paths) are presented first and in greater detail, with Linux instructions provided only for the mobility agent update and not for appliance components. Windows tools (Registry Editor, msiexec, MARSAgentInstaller) are referenced exclusively, and there is no mention of Linux equivalents or parity for appliance management or manual updates. The documentation assumes a Windows environment for appliance operations and troubleshooting.
Recommendations
  • Provide Linux-specific instructions for updating appliance components, including command-line examples and package management guidance (e.g., using rpm, deb, or shell scripts).
  • Mention Linux equivalents for Windows tools (e.g., alternatives to Registry Editor, locations for agent configuration, and update status checks).
  • Ensure that Linux examples are presented alongside Windows examples, not only for the mobility agent but also for appliance components and troubleshooting steps.
  • Clarify which steps are Windows-only and offer Linux alternatives where possible, especially for manual update and configuration operations.
  • Include troubleshooting and error resolution steps for Linux environments, not just Windows.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/physical-server-azure-architecture-modernized.md ...overy/physical-server-azure-architecture-modernized.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation page describes disaster recovery for both Windows and Linux physical servers to Azure, but exhibits bias towards Windows in several ways. Windows-specific technologies (such as VSS for app-consistent snapshots) are described in detail, while Linux equivalents are not mentioned. Examples and instructions (e.g., for Mobility Service installation, snapshot consistency) focus on Windows or generic terms, with no explicit Linux commands, tools, or patterns. Windows terminology and tools (VSS, SQL Server backup) are referenced exclusively or first, and Linux-specific considerations (e.g., LVM snapshots, fsfreeze, application quiescence) are absent.
Recommendations
  • Add explicit Linux examples for Mobility Service installation, including relevant commands and package managers (e.g., apt, yum).
  • Describe how app-consistent snapshots are achieved on Linux, mentioning tools such as fsfreeze, LVM snapshots, or application-specific hooks.
  • Include Linux-specific considerations for application consistency (e.g., MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle) and how to ensure quiescence during replication.
  • Reference Linux system logs and troubleshooting steps alongside Windows equivalents.
  • Ensure that instructions and examples are presented for both Windows and Linux, or clearly indicate differences where applicable.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-workload.md .../main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-workload.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page demonstrates a Windows bias by prioritizing Windows workloads and technologies (Active Directory, DNS, IIS, SQL Server, Exchange, SharePoint, Dynamics AX, Remote Desktop Services) in both the workload summary and detailed protection sections. Windows-specific tools and patterns (e.g., SQL Always On, Exchange DAGs, IIS, RDS) are described in detail, while Linux workloads are only briefly mentioned, with no Linux-specific application examples or detailed guidance. Linux is referenced generically and lacks parity in examples and integration details.
Recommendations
  • Add detailed examples and guidance for protecting common Linux workloads and applications (e.g., Apache, NGINX, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Samba, LDAP).
  • Include Linux-specific disaster recovery patterns and tools, such as LVM snapshots, rsync, DRBD, Pacemaker/Corosync clusters, and systemd unit orchestration.
  • Provide parity in documentation depth for Linux workloads, including step-by-step guides, integration scenarios, and recovery plan scripting examples.
  • Ensure that Linux workloads are mentioned alongside Windows workloads in tables and lists, rather than as a single generic entry.
  • Highlight partnerships and tested scenarios with major Linux vendors and applications, similar to the detail provided for Microsoft products.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-failover.md .../main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-failover.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page demonstrates Windows bias in several ways: Windows VM instructions are consistently listed before Linux equivalents, with more detailed steps and troubleshooting links for Windows (e.g., Windows Firewall, RDP, WinHTTP proxy, SAN policy, Windows Update). Linux instructions are brief and lack comparable detail. Windows-specific tools and patterns (e.g., Windows Firewall, RDP, WinHTTP proxy, SAN policy) are mentioned without Linux analogs. There are no Linux-specific troubleshooting links or examples for post-failover connectivity issues.
Recommendations
  • Provide Linux instructions with equal detail, including steps for configuring SSH, Linux firewalls (e.g., iptables, firewalld, ufw), and handling common Linux post-failover issues.
  • Include Linux-specific troubleshooting resources and links, similar to those provided for Windows RDP issues.
  • Mention Linux tools and patterns (e.g., SELinux/AppArmor, systemd services, SSH configuration) where relevant.
  • Alternate the order of Windows and Linux instructions or present them in parallel to avoid Windows-first bias.
  • Add examples for Linux-specific failover scenarios, such as handling pending package updates, persistent routes, or network configuration issues.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/shared-disk-support-matrix.md ...n/articles/site-recovery/shared-disk-support-matrix.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation page exhibits Windows bias by exclusively referencing Windows workloads, Windows Server SKUs, and Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) as the supported platform and clustering solution. There are no examples, scenarios, or mentions of Linux virtual machines, Linux clustering solutions, or Linux-specific disaster recovery patterns.
Recommendations
  • Include support matrix entries for Linux virtual machines and clarify whether shared disk disaster recovery is supported for Linux workloads.
  • Mention Linux clustering solutions (e.g., Pacemaker, Corosync) and specify their compatibility or limitations with Azure Site Recovery shared disks.
  • Provide examples or scenarios for both Windows and Linux platforms to ensure parity.
  • Explicitly state any limitations or future plans for Linux support in the context of shared disk disaster recovery.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-sharepoint.md ...ain/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-sharepoint.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation exhibits a strong Windows bias. All examples and scenarios are based on Windows Server, SharePoint, and SQL Server, with explicit references to Windows PowerShell cmdlets and Windows-centric tools (e.g., DFSR, AzCopy). There are no examples or guidance for Linux-based deployments, nor are Linux equivalents for scripting, clustering, or recovery discussed. The documentation assumes the reader is using Windows environments and tools throughout.
Recommendations
  • Include examples and guidance for Linux-based SharePoint alternatives (e.g., SharePoint on Linux via containers, or comparable open-source platforms).
  • Provide parity in scripting examples by including Bash, Python, or Azure CLI scripts alongside PowerShell.
  • Mention Linux clustering and replication tools (e.g., DRBD, Pacemaker, rsync) where applicable.
  • Clarify which steps are Windows-specific and offer Linux alternatives or note limitations.
  • Reference Linux VM recovery scenarios and highlight any differences or considerations in Azure Site Recovery for Linux workloads.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-vmware-deployment-planner-analyze-report.md ...site-recovery-vmware-deployment-planner-analyze-report.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a moderate Windows bias. Windows-specific features (such as EFI support) are discussed in detail, with explicit mention of supported Windows Server versions and requirements, while Linux support is only briefly referenced. There are no Linux-specific examples, troubleshooting steps, or parity details. Windows terminology and tooling (e.g., references to Windows Server EFI, Azure Cloud Services VM sizing, and configuration server/process server patterns common in Windows environments) are presented without Linux equivalents or guidance. The documentation does not provide Linux-centric usage patterns, examples, or troubleshooting advice, and Windows features are often mentioned first or exclusively.
Recommendations
  • Provide explicit Linux usage examples, including screenshots or walkthroughs for Linux VMs.
  • Clarify Linux support for EFI/BIOS scenarios, including any limitations or requirements for Linux distributions.
  • Add troubleshooting steps and recommendations specific to Linux environments (e.g., common issues with Linux VMs in Azure Site Recovery).
  • Ensure that references to OS types, boot types, and VM sizing include Linux-specific details and guidance.
  • Balance the order of presentation so that Linux and Windows are treated equally, mentioning both where relevant.
  • Include references to Linux tools or commands where applicable (e.g., for bandwidth measurement, disk sizing, or VM profiling).
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-plan-capacity-vmware.md ...es/site-recovery/site-recovery-plan-capacity-vmware.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a Windows bias in several ways. Examples and instructions for controlling network bandwidth and registry settings are exclusively Windows-focused, including references to Windows registry keys, MMC snap-ins, and PowerShell cmdlets (Set-OBMachineSetting). There are no equivalent Linux examples or instructions for similar tasks. Windows tools and patterns (registry, MMC, PowerShell) are mentioned before or instead of Linux alternatives. Linux is only mentioned in the context of deploying a master target server, with no further details or parity in operational guidance.
Recommendations
  • Provide Linux-specific examples for controlling bandwidth, such as using tc, iptables, or other Linux-native tools.
  • Include instructions for configuring replication settings on Linux-based process servers, if supported.
  • Offer parity in operational guidance for Linux, such as how to monitor and optimize replication performance without relying on Windows registry or MMC.
  • Mention Linux equivalents for PowerShell cmdlets or clarify if certain features are Windows-only.
  • Ensure that screenshots and UI walkthroughs include Linux scenarios where applicable.
  • Add a section that explicitly addresses differences and limitations between Windows and Linux process/master target servers.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-whats-new-archive.md ...icles/site-recovery/site-recovery-whats-new-archive.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Powershell Heavy
Summary
The documentation page for Azure Site Recovery updates shows some evidence of Windows bias. In several places, Windows operating systems and features are mentioned before Linux equivalents, and Windows-specific tools (such as PowerShell) are referenced for certain operations (e.g., firewall-enabled storage accounts). There are also cases where instructions or feature support are described with a Windows-first approach, and PowerShell is sometimes the only automation example given. However, the page does include substantial Linux support and update notes, and Linux features are regularly called out.
Recommendations
  • Ensure that Linux examples (such as CLI commands or automation scripts) are provided alongside or before PowerShell/Windows examples wherever possible.
  • When listing supported operating systems or features, alternate the order or group by platform to avoid consistently listing Windows first.
  • Where Windows-specific tools (e.g., PowerShell) are referenced, add equivalent Linux tooling (e.g., Azure CLI, Bash scripts) and provide links to relevant documentation.
  • Review sections where feature support or instructions are described and ensure Linux parity in detail and prominence.
  • Consider adding explicit Linux troubleshooting and migration scenarios, not just listing supported distros.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-manage-registration-and-protection.md ...ry/site-recovery-manage-registration-and-protection.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page demonstrates a strong Windows bias. All example scripts and procedures use PowerShell, WMI, and System Center VMM—Windows-specific tools and patterns. There are no examples or instructions for Linux servers, nor are Linux equivalents mentioned. The documentation assumes the administrator is working in a Windows environment, with no guidance for Linux-based disaster recovery scenarios.
Recommendations
  • Include equivalent instructions and scripts for unregistering and disabling protection for Linux servers, if supported by Azure Site Recovery.
  • Provide Bash or shell script examples for Linux environments where applicable.
  • Mention Linux tools and patterns (e.g., systemd, cron, Linux agent uninstall) alongside Windows tools.
  • Clearly state platform limitations or support in each section, so Linux administrators know whether and how they can perform these actions.
  • Add a dedicated section for Linux-based disaster recovery scenarios, if supported, to ensure parity and inclusivity.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-enable-replication.md ...icles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-enable-replication.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Powershell Heavy 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page demonstrates a Windows bias in several ways: Windows-specific features (such as Azure Hybrid Benefit for Windows Server) are highlighted, PowerShell is presented as the primary automation tool with no mention of Linux alternatives, and Windows terminology and tools are referenced without Linux parity. There are no Linux shell (bash/CLI) examples or explicit guidance for Linux VMs, and Windows-related options (e.g., UEFI/Gen2 VM requirements) are described in detail, while Linux scenarios are not covered.
Recommendations
  • Include Linux shell (bash/CLI/az CLI) examples alongside PowerShell for automation tasks.
  • Explicitly document Linux VM requirements and considerations (e.g., UEFI, disk types, supported distributions) in relevant sections.
  • Mention Linux licensing and cost-saving options (if any) similar to Azure Hybrid Benefit for Windows.
  • Provide troubleshooting and configuration guidance for Linux VMs, not just Windows.
  • Ensure that references to tools and scripts are cross-platform or alternatives are provided for Linux environments.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-install-mobility-service.md ...site-recovery/vmware-azure-install-mobility-service.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation presents Windows instructions before Linux, uses Windows-specific tools (e.g., registry edits, GPO, cspsconfigtool.exe), and provides detailed Windows firewall and anti-virus steps, while Linux instructions are less detailed and lack parity in some areas (e.g., no Linux anti-virus guidance, cspsconfigtool.exe appears Windows-only).
Recommendations
  • Present Linux and Windows instructions in parallel or alternate order to avoid Windows-first bias.
  • Provide Linux equivalents for all Windows-specific steps, such as anti-virus exclusions and firewall configuration (e.g., iptables, firewalld).
  • Clarify whether cspsconfigtool.exe is available for Linux, or provide a Linux-native alternative or instructions.
  • Include Linux-specific troubleshooting and security recommendations, such as SELinux/AppArmor considerations and anti-virus folder exclusions.
  • Ensure all ports and network requirements are documented for both platforms, not just Windows (e.g., SMB and WMI ports are Windows-specific; clarify Linux requirements).
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/replication-appliance-support-matrix.md .../site-recovery/replication-appliance-support-matrix.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First Missing Linux Example 🔧 Windows Tools
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a strong Windows bias. All operating system requirements, folder paths, and configuration instructions are exclusively for Windows Server, with no mention of Linux support or equivalents. Windows-specific tools and features (such as IIS, group policies, and C:\Program Files paths) are referenced throughout, and there are no examples or guidance for deploying or managing the replication appliance on Linux systems.
Recommendations
  • Explicitly state whether Linux-based replication appliances are supported or not. If not supported, clarify this early in the document.
  • If Linux support exists or is planned, provide equivalent Linux requirements (e.g., supported distributions, minimum specs, locale settings).
  • Include Linux-specific configuration instructions, such as folder paths for antivirus exclusions, service management, and network setup.
  • Mention Linux alternatives for Windows tools (e.g., Apache/Nginx for IIS, SELinux/AppArmor for group policies) where relevant.
  • Provide Linux command-line examples (e.g., bash, systemctl) alongside or in place of Windows/Powershell instructions.
  • Ensure parity in troubleshooting and operational guidance for both platforms.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-overview.md .../main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-overview.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page exhibits Windows bias by prioritizing Windows-centric technologies and scenarios (e.g., Windows Server Failover Clusters, SQL Server Always On, AWS Windows instances) and mentioning Windows tools and workloads before Linux equivalents. There is a lack of Linux-specific examples, especially in advanced features like shared disk and application integration, and no Linux-centric disaster recovery scenarios or tools are highlighted.
Recommendations
  • Add explicit Linux workload examples, such as disaster recovery for Linux-based applications (e.g., Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SAP on Linux).
  • Include parity for advanced features (e.g., shared disk, clustering) with Linux equivalents, such as Pacemaker/Corosync clusters or NFS/GlusterFS shared storage.
  • Provide Linux-specific automation and scripting integration examples, such as using Bash scripts or Ansible playbooks in recovery plans.
  • Highlight support for Linux distributions and clarify any feature gaps or limitations for Linux workloads.
  • Ensure that Linux scenarios and tools are mentioned alongside Windows ones, not only as a secondary note.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-failover-to-azure-troubleshoot.md ...covery/site-recovery-failover-to-azure-troubleshoot.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Powershell Heavy Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation page exhibits several Windows biases. Troubleshooting steps for hydration failures provide only Windows PowerShell scripts and registry-based instructions, with no Linux equivalent or parity. Windows-specific tools like PsExec and Internet Explorer are mentioned for proxy troubleshooting, while Linux alternatives are not described. Windows troubleshooting is often presented first or exclusively, and Linux guidance is minimal or absent in key sections. Linux-specific errors and solutions are less detailed, and examples for Linux are missing where Windows instructions are provided.
Recommendations
  • Provide equivalent Linux troubleshooting steps and scripts for hydration failures, including commands for modifying driver/service startup types.
  • Include Linux-native tools and workflows for proxy configuration and troubleshooting, such as using curl, wget, or environment variable edits, instead of relying on Windows tools like PsExec and Internet Explorer.
  • Ensure that both Windows and Linux examples are presented side-by-side or in parallel tabs, rather than Windows-first or Windows-only.
  • Expand Linux error handling and troubleshooting sections to match the depth and clarity of Windows instructions.
  • Add more Linux screenshots and command-line examples where GUI steps are described for Windows.
  • Review all troubleshooting steps to ensure Linux users have clear, actionable guidance for each scenario.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-prepare-failback.md ...rticles/site-recovery/vmware-azure-prepare-failback.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 3 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Windows Heavy Examples
Summary
The documentation page exhibits a moderate Windows bias. Windows master target servers are mentioned first and described as the default. Windows-specific details (such as retention drive configuration and default volume letters) are provided before Linux equivalents. The process for adding retention drives and other configuration steps are explained in detail for Windows, with Linux instructions present but less emphasized. Windows tools and patterns (e.g., drive letters, formatting, default volumes) are referenced more prominently than Linux equivalents.
Recommendations
  • Present Linux and Windows options with equal prominence, listing both in parallel rather than defaulting to Windows.
  • Provide step-by-step Linux examples and instructions for all configuration steps, matching the detail given for Windows.
  • Include Linux-specific troubleshooting tips and configuration notes (e.g., file system types, mounting points) alongside Windows notes.
  • Avoid language that assumes Windows as the default (e.g., 'by default a Windows master target server runs...'), and clarify that either OS can be used depending on the VM workload.
  • Ensure all tool references (e.g., VMware tools vs. open-vm-tools) are balanced and explained for both platforms.
GitHub Create Pull Request
Site Recovery https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/blob/main/articles/site-recovery/site-recovery-extension-troubleshoot.md .../site-recovery/site-recovery-extension-troubleshoot.md
High Priority View Details →
Scanned: 2026-01-08 00:53
Reviewed by: LLM Analysis
Issues: 4 bias types
Detected Bias Types
Windows First 🔧 Windows Tools Powershell Heavy Missing Linux Example
Summary
The documentation consistently presents Windows troubleshooting steps before Linux equivalents, with detailed instructions using Windows-specific tools (services.msc, Control Panel, MSI installer, .NET dependency). Linux troubleshooting is less detailed and lacks parity in step-by-step guidance. Windows tools and patterns are mentioned exclusively, while Linux instructions are more generic and do not reference equivalent Linux tools (e.g., systemctl status, package managers).
Recommendations
  • Alternate the order of Windows and Linux troubleshooting sections, or present them side-by-side for parity.
  • Provide equally detailed, step-by-step instructions for Linux, including commands to check agent status, uninstall/reinstall the agent, and verify dependencies.
  • Reference Linux-specific tools and patterns (e.g., systemctl, journalctl, package managers like apt/yum/zypper) where Windows tools are mentioned.
  • List Linux prerequisites (e.g., Python, required libraries) similar to the mention of .NET for Windows.
  • Include direct links to Linux agent packages for major distributions and instructions for manual installation if repository installation is not possible.
  • Ensure that all troubleshooting steps for Windows have a Linux equivalent, and vice versa.
GitHub Create Pull Request
← Previous Page 17 of 35 Next →