IBM Cloud Object Storage Reviews

I do not use IBM Cloud Object Storage directly, but I was part of a consultancy company that managed it. During my professional career, I have worked for vendors like NetApp, Dell, and EMC, as well as consultancy companies. 

I have experience in positioning IBM Cloud Object Storage and installing it. In the data lake use case, I primarily worked for automotive customers. In this industry, I observed customers approaching IoT and big data using IBM Cloud Object Storage as the first landing storage.

The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites. 

Also, important is the capability to provide RESTful APIs for custom connectors. In terms of security, I advise customers to rotate access keys to enhance protection. Additionally, scalability is effortless as you can add nodes or expand the license.

Room for improvement depends on customer needs. Some customers prefer pure Object Storage using the S3 protocol, while others use a gateway in front of the storage grid to enable CIFS or NFS. I prefer when Object Storage provides S3 capability.

I manage Object Storage in terms of positioning and installation. In terms of data analytics workflows, IBM Cloud Object Storage supports data pipelines and training, allowing customers to manage and analyze data using tools like Spark on Kubernetes.

I rate the stability at nine out of ten. There are no major issues with stability.

I haven't faced any issues with scalability. You can easily scale by adding nodes or expanding licenses. For example, our running solution has sixteen sites with over five hundred billion files.

I rate their technical support team a five out of ten. 

Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support. Understanding the solution's integration with third-party software and applications could expedite issue resolution.

Neutral

I previously used NetApp, Cloudian, and DDN solutions.

The initial setup is straightforward. With the current market knowledge, it is easy to connect applications to IBM Cloud Object Storage.

In general, Object Storage should be a cheaper solution.

I recommend IBM Cloud Object Storage to my customers for various use cases, such as tape replacement, managing unstructured data, or being a target for data protection. I advise customers to consider its flexibility, ability to manage innumerable files, and capacity for installation across multiple sites, allowing them to create an on-premises cloud approach. 

Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten.

In my most recent project, we primarily used it to create backups from Spectrum Protect and store them in the cloud. It was pretty straightforward – we went out to the cloud, created the bucket, set up the access keys, and then we were able to use Spectrum Protect to send backup data from our on-premises environment to the cloud.

Most of the projects I work on involve cloud deployments, and the specific cloud provider depends on the client's existing environment.

IBM Cloud Object Storage supports big data and analytics workflows. However, I usually have to refer to my documentation for that.

Cloud environments are part of almost every project I've been involved in over the last few years, but I rely heavily on documentation whenever I need to do anything in the cloud. I know the basics, but the technical details always need refreshing.

I create the drawings or diagrams of how the on-premises and cloud environments interact.

So, visual representations are helpful. I'll diagram the on-premises environment, the cloud environment, and any appliances in between and then work from there.

The integration capabilities simplified our data workflows. Like, the integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

The biggest feature is the ease with which you can move data between on-premises storage and the cloud, and then retrieve it back on-premises when necessary.

All cloud environments have been pretty robust over the last few years. Of course, there's always room for improvement. 

If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them. Focusing on a more user-friendly console experience would be a good direction.

I've been working with IBM Cloud for about three years now. I have more experience with AWS and Azure, though.

It's very stable. I'd have to give it a nine or ten. Everything has the potential to break occasionally. 

However, in my experience, if there's a breakdown, it's usually not a core stability issue with the cloud environment itself. It's more likely to be a problem with a specific component – something on the internet, a networking issue, a storage issue, etc.

You typically have a defined amount of space allocated in the cloud. Scaling that space is easy whenever you need to expand. For example, let's say you have 100 terabytes in the cloud and need to increase it to 150; that's doable through the console. You can view your available space and expand it right there.

In my past organization, when I was working for IBM Watson Health, we were collaborating across three US sites. I'm sure there were several hundred users accessing the IBM Cloud Object Storage at that time.

IBM technical support is one of the best. When you open a ticket, depending on your support level, they usually respond within your agreed-upon timeframe. I've never had any issues with that.

Positive

The initial deployment didn't take long. When I was deploying Spectrum Protect backups (while working for IBM at the time), the cloud space was already provisioned. I basically just had to:

• Create the bucket where the backups would go

• Create the access keys

• Configure Spectrum Protect to connect to the cloud using the newly created keys

So, it took about a day. There's some verification time after creating the bucket and generating the keys. 

And then, you associate the key for that bucket. So you associate that key with that bucket, and you have to do the same thing on the other side.

Both sides of the connection [cloud storage and Spectrum Protect] need to be configured and authorized.

It provides a good ROI. Like other cloud object storage solutions, leveraging IBM Cloud Object Storage can reduce your reliance on on-premises storage infrastructure. This smaller on-premises footprint can lead to improved ROI in many cases.

Like most cloud providers, IBM likely charges based on storage capacity, typically per gigabyte or terabyte. Their pricing is competitive when compared to AWS or Microsoft. I don't believe it's significantly more expensive than the others – it ultimately depends on your specific requirements.

The cloud environment I'd recommend depends on what the other person has in place already. Cloud environments are largely transparent these days.

For example, if you're a Microsoft shop, it'll likely be easier to integrate Azure than AWS, IBM Cloud, or EMC Elastic Cloud. But if you're running a Linux or Unix environment, you have more flexibility in your cloud choices.

So, I would recommend it – especially if you're an IBM shop. Cloud Object Storage would be the easiest to integrate and work with. It will work with other environments if everything's based on the S3 protocol.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The primary objective was to leverage Watson's Supply Chain Insight, which entails utilizing the Supply Chain tool enhanced with artificial intelligence capabilities. This integration aims to harness the power of AI to identify issues within the supply chain that humans might overlook.

You need to send a piece to a manufacturing facility, but you weren't aware that a strike affected the route. Watson Supply Chain checks for such issues online and alerts you to reroute the trucks accordingly. For instance, if there's a strike blocking a highway, Watson will notify you to avoid that route and take an alternate road.

The best feature for me is the object storage, which is similar to Dropbox. It allows me to store files, trigger actions, share files, and secure them with authentication. It's integrated into the IBM cloud, which works with other tools within the cloud environment.

I had to export information from databases as CSV or text files. These databases belonged to the clients, and I needed to transform them to be compatible with the Watson Supply Chain database since they were different. This is where the process occurred. I would send these CSVs to cloud storage using IBM Aspera.

Anyone can copy the files to the designated folder. The IBM App Connect detects the files and takes them. Once it has all the files, it moves them to IBM Cloud Object Storage as a temporary device. Then, it attempts to load them into the database to check the data integrity. If everything is okay, it loads the information from the database into the Watson Supply Chain by passing through the Watson Cloud Chain API.

My clients' employees prefer simplicity and only want one tool to handle their tasks. In this case, they use the application IBM Aspera to upload files, which are then automatically copied to IBM Cloud Object Storage.

If the files go into the "field of success," the users know everything is fine. However, if the files end up in the "field of error," I also include log information with those files they wanted to import via CSV. This way, they have the results in the log with access. They say everything went fine, and if there are problems, they have logs they can read. So, it was designed to be as user-friendly as possible. However, most of the complexity lies within the ESB, API, and the database.

The security features of IBM Cloud Object Storage meet our data protection needs by integrating with IBM IAM. I link my IBM IAM with the ESB and authenticate using a token. When I need to authenticate Cloud Storage, I securely send the request over SSL to the Cloud Storage API.

It was possible to use the internal network, meaning that when the ESB of IBM App Connect connects to IBM Cloud Object Storage, we do not pass through the internet. Instead, we use IBM's internal network, which is on-premise.

One improvement could be incorporating a feature similar to Dropbox's version history. This would allow users to track modifications made to files over time, which is particularly important for maintaining a record of changes. While the free version might not include this feature, it could be included in the paid version to provide added value to clients. Additionally, having a version history feature that allows users to access modifications made to files over the past three months could be beneficial. 

I believe it could be beneficial for our clients. Sometimes, files are lost, and clients may want to retrieve them. The tool could offer different options. For example, they could charge for three months, six months, or even a year of file history.

Integration with other tools like Kafka, Confluence, and Apache would be beneficial. IBM Aspera is already integrated with IBM Cloud Object Storage. 

I have been using the product for a year. 

I didn't have the chance to use it extensively. I had the elite version, the free version, but there was a bug in it. I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

My company has three users. 

The tool's deployment was easy and fast except for getting the API documentation. 

I would recommend the product based on the client's specific needs and budget. As someone without particular preferences or biases towards specific tools, I prioritize recommending the most suitable option for the client's requirements and financial constraints.

If the organization already utilizes IBM Cloud, I recommend using IBM Cloud Object Storage, especially for sensitive data. Many companies, particularly banks, prefer to keep their data on-premise and are cautious about moving to the cloud. Therefore, if they are already using IBM Cloud and need to store sensitive data, it's advisable to leverage IBM Cloud Object Storage. 

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution for uploading the images to the bucket, like the OS images.

Mostly IBM supports the VMDK files and VISTA files. If you are provisioning any of the VISTA files, from your custom image then you need a visual file. So first, you need to upload it to the bucket, and then from there, you create the image by collaborating with a VSI file. In short, I use it for uploading images.

The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in, it gets everything you just uploaded on a single line. So, it is easy. The main thing to mention here is the ease of the IBM console, even though when you try from the terminal, both are easy.

I can't mention right now what can be improved because I haven't explored the solution in-depth, so I just use it for the standard one.

The UI is a good one till now, but it can be improved. Every time in the software world, there are a lot of improvements needed every time you come up with some new solution, especially in the UI part. So it's the customers who like it.

IBM has limited cloud storage. The portability of the storage is needed, like how AWS supports Snow and other portable storage. So that needs to be included. Also, the one thing I mentioned here is that the good one is IBM Aspera for transferring mostly the infrastructure or the data, which was a very fast process.

Snow is something from AWS that I would like to be added to IBM.

I have been working with IBM Cloud Object Storage for two to three months. My company has a partnership with IBM.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. You can scale it either by using the license or by seeking help from the support team.

The setup is very easy since you can do it within a couple of clicks. So, you can create your own cloud. Also, I didn't face any complexity or issue regarding the deployment.

Right now, we don't do any maintenance, but maybe in the future if needed we can go with the maintenance part.

IBM Cloud is cheaper than AWS. If you want to scale your cloud infrastructure, it can be bought at almost the same price.

The storage solutions from AWS and IBM storage are about the same, but IBM provides a little more stability and throughput than AWS. In my opinion, these are the things I couldn't mention.

The documentation is good on IBM's side because every time we need any assistance, we refer to IBM's documentation. It really helps a lot. In case there is some limitation, and we don't get the point, we approach the support team. They are also very helpful.

I recommend that storage be deployed on the data center because it may have latency when it is deployed on the cloud. So if it's not hybrid, if it's the powercloud solution, we recommend IBM.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cloud Object Storage for backend storage. Some customers are using traditional library or data storage, but we also have purely cloud-based customers. They use Cloud Object Storage as backend storage for the Spectrum Protect Server.

We aren't using Cloud Object Storage for applications or for some operating system. It is only backend storage and a target for backups that go through Spectrum Protect Server and end up on the cloud.

One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there.

It's similar to AirGate protection, but it's software-based. You cannot overwrite the data once you write it. The software blocks it.

The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have. 

I wouldn't use it for business-critical data that customers need to access regularly. It's suitable for storing code data. For example, say you're required to retain data for 10 or 20 years, and nobody's using it, but you need to keep it for legal purposes. Cloud Object Storage is suitable for holding that kind of data.

I would like IBM to improve performance. I know that there are other tools that can help you, but you need to buy another license. For example, Aspera can help you with network latency. 

Cloud Object Storage is a stable solution. When you buy it, you are not buying one copy. You can have a regional or a global replica, so you can use data from the other location If one site potentially is not available. It has built-in redundancy. 

If you are talking about just IBM, Cloud Object Storage is scalable. It also depends on the region. There are three data centers in Germany, so there is almost infinite capacity. Amsterdam and other areas have just one data center, so you could potentially reach capacity limits. IBM spreads the data to the other data center closest to your primary location.

If we need to do something with hardware, we open a ticket, and the local guys in the data center handle the request. You don't need to travel to the data center to fix the issue.

They can solve a simple issue within a few hours, but complex problems take a few days. In my experience, we've never had trouble with cloud data centers. 

Sometimes spare parts are missing in a traditional data center. It's usually not a problem with the technician, but it's an issue with a spare part where we need to wait for delivery, and it can take weeks to get it. The cloud data center is excellent from this point of view because they have lots of spare parts. 

I don't have hands-on experience with AWS, Azure, or Oracle. I'm getting certifications and upskilling myself to use these solutions in the future. My company is an IBM partner, and we were an IBM service provider in the past, so we've mostly used IBM technology. Now we are also a partner of Microsoft, VMware, AWS, Oracle, and Azure. In the future, we will focus on using and comparing other technologies. 

I don't think the setup is complex. it's straightforward. I rate Cloud Object Storage seven or eight out of 10 for ease of use. It depends on the skills of the person installing it.

You have the option of a monthly or yearly license. Most customers choose the monthly option. I understand what you would like to say. IBM also lets you choose among four types of Cloud Object Storage. The difference is usage, performance, etc. Of course, high-performance storage is more expensive, while low-performance storage is for cold data, and it's really cheap.

If you're adding storage, it costs the same as buying a new one. You don't get discounts. It's no problem to add extra capacity, but it really depends on the type of storage you are using. Of course, the final cost depends on the type you are using and how much space you'll need in the future.

I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage seven out of 10. There are performance issues. I'm still trying AWS. If it has the same issue, maybe I would rate it higher. I don't know if it's only IBM, but I think it might be a general issue. Cloud Object Storage uses the same technology and protocols as AWS S3. IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft all use it. It depends on the network. 

IBM Cloud Object Storage was designed for the purposes of spreading your systems across multiple sites, at least three sites.

Since I'm a partner for COS this isn't something I can comment on.

IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well.

If I'm a customer evaluating your environment, I need to understand what the motivations are and if the motivations are in alignment with multiple sites. For example, if I am the producer or distributor of digital movies or video surveillance material, then solutions such as Amplidata/Quantum and the Cloud Object Storage product would be better suited. If I were building my own storage cloud as a service provider, I would lean towards those solutions.

The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation.

I have used IBM Cloud Object Storage within the past 12 months.

I have used Quantum ActiveScale.

Teradata has customers that have requested, and we have responded by integrating the Teradata database to IBM Cloud Object Storage, such as NetApp and Hitachi or Dell EMC ECS and MinIO. The integrations have been smooth.

I would advise others that are thinking about implementing IBM Cloud Object Storage that you have to look at your use case to see if it is a good fit. If you have more of an archival use case, it may not be the best solution for you. It's about matching what your aims are to the platform.

IBM Cloud Object Storage is an acquisition of a company called Cleversafe. Quantum ActiveScale, also the acquisition of Amplidata. And both of those products are really designed for Geo-dispersed data.

I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a six out of ten.

We use the vendor component. Two years ago, I worked as a technical lead and I expanded the business partner channel. We found some new clients requiring cloud object storage, but unfortunately, IBM didn't have a data center in the required location. IBM compares favorably in terms of price, however. A lot of companies have this same problem, in terms of a lack of data centers. Some Polish businesses are thinking about adapting their infrastructure to the cloud, but there is not enough uptake at the moment, unfortunately.

The IBM solution can work with different types of hardware. Clients can use their own data centre or one in the cloud provided by IBM. Data can be forwarded as snapshots between different areas of the business. 

IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage. The IBM cloud object storage solution tool is a good product. The customer can own the storage object solution and their own data center. For example, it is possible for users to connect to the local data center and the cloud data center. We are informed this is very good for all the bugs

Perhaps in price and they don't have a large number of additional services. 

We have been using this product for 4 years. 

It is a stable product.

IBM Cloud storage is scalable, as it integrates different products together.

Technical support is good.

The setup is simple.

IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be.

We considered Commodore but that requires a large infrastructure. IBM is quick and easy to setup.

I rate this product 8 out of 10.

IBM Cloud Object Storage is widely used across platforms like Amazon, Google, and even YouTube, providing scalable and durable storage for my unstructured data needs;. 

I used the trainings and roadmaps offered by IBM MOPP to master the basics. started with the installation master node the Accesser and Slicestores . everything was done powervm lpars. and did it several times until i am fluent with the setup and play with the redundancy of the slicestores. until one clearly understand how erasure coding work. .another mandatory aspect to understand it its networking requirements and how its being feferated and its low wan bandwidth requirement.. EMC provides a tool called NVT-ECS which crosscheck all network prerequisittes before even starting an installation.

The standout feature of any Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions. It ensures that accounts and transactions are safeguarded against hacking attempts, its important to note that object storage doesn't copyout and replicates deletes to federated locations, hence providing peace of mind for both users and businesses.

One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase. While it is a robust and reliable solution, updating the technology stack could enhance its compatibility with newer frameworks and ensure it remains competitive in the rapidly evolving tech landscape.

I have been using IBM Cloud Object Storage since 2017.

In terms of stability, IBM Cloud Object Storage is rock solid. Even if the main site goes down, access to the tool remains uninterrupted. It is resilient and hassle-free, with no need to mess around with IP addresses or data migration. its simply Just a reliable web link to your data whenever you need it.

Whatever object solutions you choose all have same scalability, but speaking from its networking aspects, EMC ECS does ease scalability

In general, I'm satisfied with the tech support offered by IBM and Dell EMC. However, there have been some issues, such as IBM fairness policy with partners. Overall, the flexibility customers to switch partners annually based on performance is still questionable withing a product hw lifecycle. I prefer the phrase grow with your customer. instead of yearly switching partners.

Neutral

I chose IBM Cloud Object Storage to learn the basics because other resources only provide summaries of summaries and won't makes you understand the realthing though deployments is quite easy if the roadmap is followed... With IBM, I got hands-on experience through Tech-u webinars and installations, which helped me grasp the real thing. .

Setting up IBM Cloud Object Storage is straightforward and not too complex. You start from scratch by flashing it onto your installation server. Then you set up the manager, and it is good to go. Following labs provided by IBM or other resources like TechU conferences can make the process even easier. however It is recommended to have it on a private setup rather than following a subscription on the cloud for better control and ownership.

A vendor team, a huge lack of precision in the beginning. support team themselves are learning the product, thats why i went thru ibm Training for cleversafe object version instead and learn it from root...-in summary try to be dedicated to object storage and learn the thing yourself. and concentrate only on object storage and do nothing else. all object storage slicestores or accesser or simply nodes whatever you may recall have all its services running on containers. whatever be its flavors most runs under a core SUSE enterprise linux.  One Troubleshooting aspect you have to keep in mind is that even if doing something on a specific nodes, as nodes do fail, most of the maintainance commands touches the whole cluster withing a site. so be careful.

its best for you with 5 nodes for suitable redundancy, with dedicated frontend and backend switches. don't try using existing customer network infras. it will make configuration too complex any nodes upgrades more difficult. so invest initially by thinking for a peace of mind of at least least 10 years down the line.

IBM Cloud Object Storage may come with a higher price tag, but EMC ECS solution is worth the investment due to its ongoing support and maintenance requirements. Upgrading can be a bit time-consuming, typically done twice a year, but it is crucial for keeping the system integrated and functioning optimally. Planning and coordination are key to ensure smooth upgrades and minimize disruptions to applications. Overall, if you are willing to invest in maintenance and security, EMC ECS today is also a solid choice.

one may chose to add a layer of object over a block storage, but not an ideal solution. unfortunately i had to switch to EMC-ECS for hw-sw support and for the concept of having just nodes and one working as a redundant master node which looked seamlessly easier and better. emc does provide all networking configs files for even Arista switches. all nodes communicate with each other within the federation.

My advice for using IBM Cloud Object Storage for the first time would be to start by familiarizing yourself with IBM Mobility and Storage concepts. Reach out to IBM for labs and assistance, as they offer free resources and support. Install and test it on a small scale to gain confidence before fully implementing it. Don't just use it, learn how it works to maximize its benefits.

It is easy for someone new to IBM Cloud Object Storage to learn how to use it, even if they have never used it before.

Overall, I would rate IBM Cloud Object Storage concept as a ten out of ten.