Microsoft Azure Data Box Reviews

My main use case for Microsoft Azure Data Box was to take these backups. Microsoft Azure Data Box works by collecting an external hard drive. We connected it and added network connectivity to our environment, then started the backup. Instead of storing a backup destination somewhere in our environment, desktop, server, or any database, it stores in Microsoft Azure Data Box.

Microsoft Azure Data Box has an encryption practice feature that I have found to be valuable. It is very good, and there are no challenges.

Regarding benefits from Microsoft Azure Data Box's robust integration with Azure services, it is a one-time migration. Once your backup gets stored, I have to return Microsoft Azure Data Box to Microsoft. Then they will copy and do the encryption, and it will come back to me. Once it is connected, I will move the data to the cloud.

Microsoft Azure Data Box devices have an ability to handle harsh transport conditions and support my data management needs. Microsoft will arrange for hardware shipment to the customer location.

I had a negative experience with Microsoft support. Microsoft Azure Data Box helped with streamlining my migration processes, but I was very disappointed in the initial phase because the support team was weak. They should focus and learn end-to-end because when I reach out to Microsoft, that means it is the end, and post that, nobody is there to support me. It is also quite difficult for me to get in line with the product owner, which is one big challenge I faced.

Although I mentioned many good things about the product, there is an area for improvement in Microsoft Azure Data Box. They should mention the quick steps for how we are supposed to do it. Once we receive Microsoft Azure Data Box, there should be some support person who reaches out to us with guidance. If they guide us, then I will get to know whether I am in the right direction or wrong direction, rather than searching for support everywhere. It is just unnecessary wastage of time. Post that, they give at least one to two months free of cost. However, post that, if I am unable to migrate my data, then there will be charges.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Data Box for six to seven months to take the backups, and then we stopped.

Stability is good with no issues.

I can rate scalability for Microsoft Azure Data Box from zero to ten where ten is very scalable. It is an eight.

I would give Microsoft support a rating of five out of ten, where ten is the best. This is an average rating.

Positive

The installation process and deployment are straightforward, but I may face some challenges in the initial phase. I suggest that somebody from Microsoft should get in touch with me and help me with the installation. Then I can start the backups, and they can drop off from there.

In comparison to other similar products, Microsoft Azure Data Box is an expensive product.

I work with the same set of tools with Microsoft Azure. Apart from Azure Site Recovery, Virtual Desktop, and Bastion, I work with the migration part, cost optimization, and landing zone. I am a partner of Microsoft and have a kind of partnership with them. I did not purchase this product directly from Microsoft, but rather my senior manager based in the US placed the order. My deployment model is public cloud, and my main cloud provider is Microsoft Azure. I give Microsoft Azure Data Box a rating of eight out of ten for the solution in general where ten is the best product. There is a colleague at another company who works on the database side and can provide all the information related to database concerns. His name is Deepak Pradhan, and his contact number is 7875 76848 56 468. You can tell my name so he will accept your call.

I absolutely utilize the data migration feature with Microsoft Azure Data Box; that's what I got it for. It helps streamline my data migration process by making the migration a lot faster.

For me personally, the best feature of Microsoft Azure Data Box is that it's ruggedized storage, unlikely to get damaged or lost.

Microsoft Azure Data Box's robust integration with the Azure platform benefits my organization by allowing us to move large amounts of data; rather than having to copy it over the internet, which can take weeks or months, we can copy it onto this local disk and then ship it off to Microsoft and they'll upload it for you.

The Data Box device's ability to handle harsh transport conditions supports my data management because the boxes are certainly very ruggedized.

The product is physically too big. It takes much space and can be hard to fit. It takes up a lot of room.

I've been working with Microsoft Azure Data Box for five years.

I notice no drawbacks or downsides; it's been a very good service. Microsoft has just now come out with a new generation one which I haven't used yet, but it's been pretty good.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Microsoft Azure Data Box as a nine for scalability.

I find Microsoft support in general to be very responsive on Microsoft Azure Data Box. I would rate the support as an eight.

With Microsoft Azure Data Box, I face no challenges with implementation; it's quite simple and straightforward. It's a good service. Microsoft ships you the box and you copy the data onto it and they copy it up to where you need it. Deployment doesn't take much time since it's a physical box, so it doesn't take long to plug in, as long as you're prepared with the right cable.

I normally deploy it all by myself as I'm the consultant deploying it.

Overall, I see substantial benefit from using Microsoft Azure Data Box for my organization.

I believe the price and licensing cost are reasonable since Microsoft has just made it free; it's getting better.

There is nothing else to add here. I see no need for other features in future updates, as it's just a physical box for copying data onto. It's not an AI device and can't really be improved. It's basically a fancy disk drive. I rate this product overall as a nine.

I can describe the main use case for Microsoft Azure Data Box as transferring a huge amount of data from the customer's on-premise environment, ensuring it's shipped correctly with all tags and encryptions.

Microsoft Azure Data Box is useful for specific scenarios in data migration, and I only see it as a last option if I lack good bandwidth.

The minimum data volume I work with for Microsoft Azure Data Box is 100 plus TB, depending on my clients and their needs.

If there are clients' requirements, I work with Microsoft Azure Data Box currently as the only option.

The primary use case for Microsoft Azure Data Box involves transferring huge amounts of data from the customer's on-premise environment, ensuring it's shipped correctly with all tags and encryptions.

Microsoft Azure Data Box is useful for specific scenarios in data migration, and I only see it as a last option if I lack good bandwidth.

The minimum data volume I work with for Microsoft Azure Data Box is 100 plus TB, depending on my clients and their needs.

I suggest Azure improve Microsoft Azure Data Box for better and faster transportation capabilities.

Microsoft Azure Data Box will be a part of our few migrations, counting from six to seven years since the Azure starting time onwards.

For the stability of Microsoft Azure Data Box, I would rate it an eight.

We are not facing many challenges regarding integration with Azure services, but the capacity matters sometimes; for small companies, 80 TB is fine, but medium to large-scale companies may need more.

For scalability, I would stick with the same rating of eight.

Based on my observation, the technical support from Microsoft has drastically gone down in quality compared to the past, which is disappointing as it now takes too long to resolve issues that used to be handled quickly.

Neutral

Since I'm a core Azure person, I've never used any other Data Box service, so I cannot compare it to market competitors.

The setup process for Microsoft Azure Data Box is straightforward if you have a good technical person.

The purchase process for Microsoft Azure Data Box is on the client side, as I am part of a CSP team.

We directly work with Microsoft after receiving first-level CSP support for the purchase process.

I would rate the price for Microsoft Azure Data Box as medium; it's neither low nor high.

We directly work with Microsoft after receiving first-level CSP support for the purchase process.

For the stability and scalability of Microsoft Azure Data Box, I would rate it an eight.

My final rating for Microsoft Azure Data Box would be an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for application implementations and migrations, mostly in an enterprise environment. It specifically involves cloud solutions and middleware services like data and virtual machines.

The scalability and availability of Microsoft Azure Data Box allow us to provide necessary infrastructure to our clients efficiently.

The availability and quick scalability of Microsoft Azure Data Box are highly valuable. These features provide infrastructure to our clients efficiently and have eliminated the need for on-site infrastructure. We also benefit from automated tasks related to resource requirements.

Currently, I do not see any areas for improvement since most of the requirements or features we use have been met effectively.

I have used Microsoft Azure Data Box for approximately seven to eight years.

I find the stability of Microsoft Azure Data Box to be very high, rated at nine out of ten. There have been some occasional outages related to Microsoft breaks.

Microsoft Azure Data Box displays excellent scalability. It allows us to upgrade resources easily within a short maintenance window, facilitating efficient resource management.

The support from Microsoft is quite good. I would rate it between eight to nine out of ten. We rely on Microsoft's support for resolving complex issues.

Positive

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure Data Box is straightforward.

Our implementation involved a team of about eight to ten people, including system administrators and DBAs. Our team is part of a larger 50-person IT team, and responsibilities were divided based on infrastructure, migrations, and application administration.

Pricing is a concern for every company, however, those making these decisions are aware of the necessary investment. I do not have detailed knowledge of the costs.

I would definitely recommend Microsoft Azure Data Box to others. 

Overall, I rate Microsoft Azure Data Box at nine out of ten.

Our primary use case involves engaging with users to gather their requirements. Once we have a thorough understanding of their existing application, we document their needs and proceed to modernize it using the latest technology, .NET Core. If migrating the application isn't feasible, we start from scratch while ensuring we preserve the user's business requirements. Following this, we carry out the development and testing phases. Once the user approves, we proceed with pilot production testing before making the application available online. This step-by-step process is executed in adherence to agile methodology, enabling us to expedite the entire workflow. Throughout the migration process, we sought assistance from Microsoft, particularly for our first-time experience migrating from an on-premises client environment to the cloud. 

So far, we have successfully migrated application servers, web servers, and SQL servers from on-premises to the cloud. This transition has been a valuable learning experience for us. Notably, in the cloud environment, we utilize dynamic IP and refer to servers by their respective names rather than IP addresses. We also implemented the same security measures on the cloud as we had in the on-premises setup. These efforts have resulted in improved performance on the cloud, making our users satisfied with the upgrade. 

Presently, I am involved in projects related to the CLS content management system for my client. They currently utilize their own tool called E360, which operates as an application server. However, this tool relies on outdated technology. Hence, our focus is on gathering requirements and migrating it to the cloud, while also incorporating additional features. As we complete the requirement-gathering phase, our next steps include development and subsequent testing, including society and education testing. Following the completion of these stages, the application will undergo user acceptance testing. This is our current progress.

One valuable aspect is the support we receive from Microsoft Azure vendors. We have encountered a few challenges, particularly related to security patches. Previously, we never experienced issues like those we encountered with our laptops after installing patches. It was surprising to see the servers facing similar problems. However, Microsoft's expertise and guidance have helped us overcome these challenges by following best practices.

In terms of performance, Azure is fast due to its robust framework. It efficiently handles heavy incoming traffic, demonstrating its intelligence by ensuring smooth operations without crashing the application or server. Occasionally, network balancing may cause minor disruptions, but overall, Azure performs reliably even when deployed on the cloud.

When it comes to old applications, they may not be the most suitable environment for Microsoft's current focus on Azure and the latest technologies. It would be helpful if Microsoft could provide some guidelines or recommendations for transitioning from old to new. Currently, there is no established practice in the market for migrating from outdated technologies, and each company follows its own approach. At our company, we have devised our own migration process, involving a mix of traditional integration, following HI methodology, and transitioning from text services to virtual services. While Azure is suitable for modern stacks, there is still room for improvement when it comes to handling legacy systems. 

In my opinion, Microsoft should offer guidance on how to migrate from old technologies to new ones since the old technologies were also developed by Microsoft. Although they may have reached their end-of-life and end-of-support stages, it would benefit developers to have support for these old technologies.

At the very least, Microsoft should provide a clear path for migrating from old technologies to new ones. Since the old technologies were originally developed by Microsoft, they should offer support, especially considering that these technologies are still used by companies like Linea, with whom I am currently working.

I have been working with Microsoft Azure Data Box for the past three years.

We are still testing the stability. So far, the stability has been good, except for the patching issues. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

Scalability largely depends on the day-to-day incoming requests. For example, on the first day of the week or month, when people tend to make more purchases, the server needs to scale up to handle the increased traffic. We have purchased enough resources to accommodate the average user's requests. 

However, for any exceptionally large incoming requests, we have our own monitoring team that manually or through a hybrid approach, scales up or down based on the incoming demand.

It seems that scaling is more feasible in the cloud compared to on-premises. That's definitely a plus. This feature is not available on-prem; it is available online, allowing us to easily upscale the processor speed or hard disk space to handle incoming requests with just a few button clicks. 

From a developer's perspective, I would rate the scalability of this solution around eight out of ten. 

Our organization has over 200 users using this solution. We are planning to increase the usage of the solution. 

We have purchased the license. So, we have the integrated support team, but based on the support and the reply back is 48 hours. Mostly, we get a reply from Microsoft within 24 hours. So I would say it is not bad. 

Positive

The initial setup is very straightforward. Since Azure is a hybrid cloud that we use, I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy. 

Personally, I don't find it challenging because most of our front-end and back-end technologies are provided by Microsoft, so Azure is a natural fit for us. Therefore, I would rate it ten out of ten.

Deployment is not as easy as I'm just one team member. We have other teams involved, such as the network team, DNS team, and access management for server-to-server communication. 

As a web service, it defaults to a database server. However, if someone requests or approves your service, they need to have website access. So deployment is mainly related to ID management and the network team. From what I know, it seems fairly straightforward. However, there are documentation and management approvals involved in the process.

Currently, we haven't implemented DevOps yet. Currently, everything is done manually because we have all the necessary teams available, and we prefer manual processes, at least for the first time. DevOps is only supportable when the server already exists. But in the case of a project like migrating from an old file server to a new cloud server, I don't think DevOps is really useful at this point in time. That's why our company decided to assign each team member to each goal to ensure successful server migration.

Deployment usually requires one to five team members from each team. In our case, we have one person supporting the internal team, and we recently added another role called "Hunt Call" for the migration. So each team consists of four to five individuals to make sure this deployment happens.

Since I deal with migrations from old to new technologies, I have to consider the cost implications of both. In terms of application modernization, I would say it falls around eight to nine on the pricing scale, with one being cheap and ten being expensive. That's what I can expect for this type of project.

Many companies are embracing Azure for its cutting-edge technologies. My recommendation would be to utilize Azure's own DevOps tools rather than external ones. When you purchase Azure, it already includes Azure DevOps tools licenses. If you opt for external DevOps tools, you may need to acquire separate licenses and learn non-Microsoft tools like Jenkins. In simpler terms, Azure DevOps is very user-friendly; with just a few button clicks, you can create a CI/CD pipeline and more. So, I highly recommend using Azure Data Box, especially if you're already using Azure DevOps.

Azure is one of the leading cloud platforms. It holds significant importance, especially considering Microsoft's extensive language support. Based on that, I would rate it nine out of ten. It's a very good solution.

Microsoft Azure Data Box is designed to handle large amounts of data effectively, just like Snowball. I have been using it for edge solutions, especially for IoT applications.  

I am currently working with a client on utilizing the Data Box for extensive IoT data, particularly real-time data. It plays a crucial role in shipping the data back to the Azure Data Center.

It provides secure transfer of large amounts of data. It supports data transfer of over a hundred terabits. It's convenient for me to encrypt the data and speed up the transfer process. 

With Data Box, all I need to do is push the data into the cloud or on-premises. It's cost-effective for me because it utilizes the network efficiently. Data Box provides an easy solution that is simple to set up and use. I have control over the encryption method I use and can securely push the data back.

The size of the solution needs to be reduced. Currently, we have 1 gigabyte of data in 23 units. However, the expected data volume is around 1075 terabytes. So the size needs to be increased accordingly. If it's not properly sized, it takes around 7 to 10 days to transfer the data. The goal is to reduce the time required.

Increasing the storage capacity is necessary, and we also need to reduce the transfer time. Currently, it takes around 7 to 10 days to transfer the data, and sometimes it takes even longer depending on factors such as the data version, security processes, and other complexities. We also need to consider firewall rules and similar aspects. Time is another important aspect to focus on.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Data Box for three years. We use the latest version. 

In our company, more than 50 users are currently utilizing Azure Data Box. They are handling a significant amount of data, in the terabytes range.

However, overall usage depends on the specific requirements. Initially, there was a certain workload that needed to be addressed, involving a large volume of data. However, it's not deployed universally, so it's a selective decision.

We do have plans to increase the usage of this solution in our organization. 

The customer service and support team is good. Data Box already incorporates everything, so tech support is not a challenge.

The setup is pretty straightforward. It doesn't take much time, actually. It's not difficult to understand the process. I already know the type of Data Box that is used, so I am aware of the guidelines for setting it up, transferring data, encryption requirements, and the specific ports to use. It's a simple process and not that hard.

Deployment was indeed a challenge, and we had to bring in a consultant. We can't bring in third-party individuals, and getting assistance from a Microsoft consultant is quite expensive for us. The local consultant may not have the necessary skill set, which adds to the challenge we face.

Deployment can be a major challenge. It's important to understand the organization's policies, the data store where the data will be going, the necessary permissions, and the specific type of Data Box being used. We also need to consider the encryption keys that need to be utilized. Microsoft has provided information on these aspects, but it's crucial for the technical team to be aware of these details. Additionally, remote work is often involved, which can present its own challenges.

It doesn't require much maintenance. Two people are good for maintenance. 

We saw an ROI.

One piece of advice would be to minimize the delay and dependence on third-party individuals for installation. It's more of a plug-and-play model that can be easily implemented. The size, approval, and cancellation processes have already been streamlined.

Overall, I would rate our product a nine out of ten. It's a good solution.

The primary function of the solution is to migrate large amounts of data off-site and into the cloud.

The solution has allowed the organization to safely transfer and store into the Microsoft Azure Cloud easily and quickly large amounts of data that can then be readily accessed.

The ability to migrate a large amount of data from an on-site premise environment into the Microsoft Azure Cloud quickly and securely is most valuable.

The device must be transported off-site before the data is uploaded into the Microsoft Azure Cloud.

I have been using the solution for around two years.

Microsoft Azure Data Box is a stable solution.

Although this is not a user-based solution if an organization has multiple sites and requires multiple migrations done at once it is easy to add additional Microsoft Azure Data Boxes.

The setup is straightforward. It's plug-and-play. 

The implementation was done in-house.

The pricing is based on the size of the appliance needed to store the data. There are no licensing fees or setup costs. The solution is not cheap or expensive.

I rate Microsoft Azure Data Box eight out of ten.

The documentation, setup, and use of the solution are straightforward.

We're looking at using this solution for some of our big data platforms. For example, creating data lakes and things like that.

We're looking at this solution because it's part of an overall tool suite, so the integration piece is what's striking our interest in it.

I think it's a single node solution. If it can be spread out across more of the enterprise and have more segregation in its virtual environment, that would be good.

I have been looking at this solution for three months.

I think the solution is stable. We haven't had any issues. We haven't really ingested a whole lot of data into the environment, however, from what I have seen, it seems pretty resilient.

Right now, our DBAs are using the solution. We probably have about 20 servers running on it with a couple hundred folks using it. We only have one person assigned to maintenance because we haven't recognized the environment yet.

The setup was pretty straightforward. We're trying to integrate it and we're using different playbooks to figure out automation in one of our test environments. We haven't run into any huge issues, but we're still going through the process.

On a scale of one to five, with one being not good and five being competitive, I would rate this solution as a four.

We have used other solutions, but we're looking at how we can consolidate different solutions and try out different technologies. We're looking for a solution with better integration and easier management with the admin console, and so far, this solution is what we were hoping for. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to migrate on-premise data and move legacy applications to the cloud.

We opted for Azure because Microsoft offers it with many legacy applications and data. They were moving to Azure because of in-house Microsoft expertise, and we specialize in Azure. It is a good fit with ease of integration there.

The support provided to partners is very generic, and finding a Microsoft specialist can be difficult to get on calls. The solution is straightforward with simple application migration, but plug-and-play AI is not involved simultaneously. There needs to be human intervention for the migration. It can be automated from end to end for SMBs, reducing cost and time for SMBs.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Data Box as an integrator for three years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

The product is stable, and I rate its stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is very scalable. We cater the solution to medium and enterprise.

The customer support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and can be done by any Azure architect or anyone with little experience. However, the complexity of the migration project will affect the deployment. The number of applications, sites, and data involved affects it. One person can handle the setup for a simple migration of a couple of applications. However, more complex migrations may require multiple people.

It takes hours to complete the deployment.

There are two perspectives to deployment: some organizations completely outsource their Azure Data Box team to integrators, while others, such as large companies like Walmart and Microsoft, have their own dedicated in-house Azure team. It depends on the perspective.

The product’s pricing is normal for enterprises but higher for SMBs.

Enterprise customers prefer a longer contract, like 25 years, whereas SMBs prefer monthly billing.

I recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten.

There are a variety of use cases for Microsoft Azure Data Box. If you are a Microsoft shop, you do not want to work with glue, so that is why you would go with Microsoft Azure Data Box. If you are in a non-Microsoft environment, you don't want to work with a Microsoft product. But, it does provide a solution that integrates non-Microsoft products, both in AWS and Azure. At the end of the day, you do not want to pay for extra data storage. You do not want to pay both for AWS and Azure because you are going to need to replicate data across two cloud bases. It is all cost-based.

Microsoft tools are always better than those of other vendors. That is a fact. Microsoft Azure Data Box has much more usability than other tools like it. It is very intuitive. In AWS, everything is very techy, but they're very stable. At the end of the day, you have to pick your poison.

For me it doesn't work well, so I work in Microsoft and non-Microsoft shops. If you're a Microsoft shop, I would – undoubtedly, blindfolded – say go with Microsoft Azure Data Box. But, if you are a non-Microsoft shop, to use Microsoft Azure Data Box, you would need to integrate it with your other vendors, and whether or not that will be possible will depend on the platform or platforms that host them. If a specific vendor is hosted on AWS and you are on Azure, you have to pay for the data and there is no way around that.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Data Box for four years. 

The solution is scalable. I have not witnessed any problems with scalability. 

Sometimes I love the tech support and sometimes I hate them. This is the case with both AWS and Microsoft. From the perspective of an IT person, a lot can go wrong. There can be a problem with the solution you write, a piece of code not running well on their platform, or the platform not adapting to your solution. There is always that discussion and compromise.

Everything is a little bit difficult in the beginning. But, once you get used to it and how it works, it is just like any other solution. Once you get it going, there is no difference.

The return on investment you get from Microsoft Azure Data Box is subjective. Service providers and end users will have different ROIs. 

It all depends on the business and the use case in terms of how the organization is using the resources put towards the data. If you put enough resources into Microsoft Azure Data Box and evaluate your product on a continual basis, you can optimize it. If you take it at face value and start implementing it, you will not have a return on investment. However, if you go full support with all the services, then you can have a good investment. 

One note: If you use Microsoft Azure Data Box both on premise and the cloud, you will have twice the cost. You will have no return on investment there.

My advice is to deploy Microsoft Azure Data Box only if it makes sense to do so with the project. What are you looking for in the solution? Which product are you moving to the cloud? Who is the customer base? You have to take all of these factors into consideration before going one way or another.