Microsoft Azure Object Storage Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure Object Storage for backups, archiving, and SFTP storage.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a pretty expensive solution. The cost management part is a little complex, and if we don't configure it right, it can be pretty expensive.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage for a few years.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a stable solution.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a scalable solution. Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s technical support should be improved.

We have previously used different solutions. We switched to Microsoft Azure Object Storage because most of our landscape is on Azure, and it's easier to have everything in one place than using a different vendor. So, it's convenient for us.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. The solution can be deployed in one or two weeks.

The solution's cost is on a pay-per-use basis.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure Object Storage to other users.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Azure Object Storage an eight out of ten.

I worked in Azure Cloud mostly on the Databricks side, with SQL Server or Synapse Analytics, or streaming analytics. It's a blob storage solution. We use the storage account, either the blob storage or the ADLS Gen 2.

We can do data queries easily. If it's a JSON document or XML document, mostly we deliver the APIs, calls, and all. The document is stored as an object stored in the Blob Storage. Then, using the Databricks, we try to process that JSON and then load it into a Delta Lake table. That is where we interact mostly with Object Storage.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

If we look at the different versions of that ADLS, it really does not have a hierarchical storage mechanism. If you want to store any document, you have to go and create one blob storage account, in case you want to store any hierarchical data. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's all scalable. It has lifecycle management where I can define a rule so that I can easily archive or move the data from the cool tier to the hot tier based on the uses and then I can also send it into the cool tier so that it can be frequently accessed. If I do that, the cost can also be minimized.

Technical support is great. We have a partnership basically with Microsoft. For my organization, Microsoft is the partner vendor. Whenever it is required, support is readily available to us.

Positive

I'm also familiar with Amazon S3. 

The initial setup is straightforward. You just have to create a storage account. You can automate that also. You have different mechanisms. You can use Azure templates, like SQL, or you can use the Terraform as well. To automate the creation of that object storage or any account. Or, if you have different APIs, like Python-based API, you can easily create what you need.

If we compare most of the other cloud vendor solutions, for example, S3 Object, S3 with the Blob Storage, more or less, both have the same capabilities. However, from a security perspective, Azure is very good. Azure offers AD integration with the storage account. That is something I find as a good feature compared to the other clouds and integration with all the Azure services is a really useful feature.

We're a gold partner with Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten due to the ADLS integration and the different authentication mechanisms that we have.

We need to make sure that the data which we are storing in those storage objects is highly secured. That is where Azure is providing us with the best features. We can go with the different mechanisms like its Nexus security or the AD authentication. Or, they also provide us admin encryption, including the transparent keys. With transparent encryption, we can encrypt based on customer-based keys. Those are also some good features that make it a really great product.

The solution can be used to share files and folders.

The product has good accessibility.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability an eight and a half out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten. Around 100 technical support team members, including support engineers, support analysts, and service delivery managers, use the solution in our organization.

I have contacted the support team for a couple of issues. The team is knowledgeable.

We were using the on-premise solution NAS provided by Dell.

The setup is straightforward.

The tool is worth the money.

The solution is expensive. However, we can choose to get a budget-friendly license. The vendor should offer extensions on the licenses. People are still working on on-premise servers. If we want them to move to the cloud, the vendors must provide competitive prices. We have a couple of small to medium businesses. The solution is not affordable for small businesses.

The vendor must provide more information on how the tool helps users. Many of our clients do not know the solutions provided by the vendor. Though the information is available on the website, most customers do not understand the technical aspects. A better way to explain the tool's uses would be through pictures. Overall, I rate the product an eight and a half out of ten.

Perhaps some customers wish to share information such as DPN or other materials about the company. However, we are uncertain about reaching every worldwide employee in every country or office. Therefore, this solution allows to download or access information like product details or new prices.

The reason is that I believe they only offer the corporate interface we use, and perhaps they should consider creating a historical customer interface. I haven't created a virtual machine; instead, I've established a personal GED. This allows me to provide customers with the necessary role functions, enabling them to download files without incurring excessive costs.         

The efficiency depends on various operations, and therefore, it should involve multiple vendor support.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage for three to five years.

The stability is good.

It is scalable and we have around ten users.

We have used Microsoft's technical support through phone calls; the experience was okay.

Positive

Regarding the integration and setup of Public Storage, it was a bit complex. The upgrade process was okay. In terms of time, I'm not sure about the exact duration of the deployment. We use object storage for data related to different customers. I'm still learning about the steps involved in deployment.

We didn't use a consultant; it's done in-house. The technical staff needed for deployment and maintenance is more than ten. 

I'm not aware of the licensing cost, as my customer handles it. In Taiwan, it's reasonably priced,

I would recommend this solution, and my advice is to use it for object storage or other services. I would like to see improvements in integration to support multiple operations.

We use the product for storage, documentation, and reporting. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to improve stability and cloud user interface. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is scalable, and we have nine users. 

A consultant helped us with the implementation. 

The tool's licensing costs are annual. It should be made reasonable. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

For us, there was a specific use case where we were trying to collect some of the information and this was a project related to IoT information collection. That is where we used Object Storage. There was bot storage used as well. We were trying to collect some information from smart meters. That smart meter solution that we developed for the customer required both Object Storage as well as Block Storage.

There are a variety of good features. Which one is best really depends on the customer's focus or specific deployment. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The solution offers good documentation.

When you get the right support person, you can deal with issues very fast.

While we defined the solution, it was not fully implemented before I left. Therefore, it would be difficult to point to an area that was lacking. 

Technical support with Microsoft is a bigger challenge as finding the right person to support you and actually getting that person on the call is hard. If you are able to get the right person on the call, then he is able to help fast. That said, in most cases, getting the right person on the call itself is a challenge.

The setup process could always be a bit easier. It's hard to find good resources. With the cloud being new, it's difficult to find the people who have done it already.

I've been using the solution for three to six months. It's been less than a year so far. 

I left before the solution was fully implemented. Therefore, while I did not see any instability, I can't speak to how stable it was once it was up and running. 

From our requirement perspective, the required scalability existed in the solution. We had no issues with scaling. 

I've interacted with technical support. They were okay. However, getting the person you need to assist you can be a challenge. 

Neutral

I have been comfortable with Microsoft technology, in general, and Microsoft approaches in the past as well. That's the reason, in most cases, I prefer to use Microsoft solutions as such.

The process is not that complex. There is a challenge finding resources who understand the cloud, however. With most of the technologies, there is enough documentation, however, what happens is, when you are looking at the whole ecosystem as such, you need resources that know what is happening. Generally, there are articles that can assist you with the setup. Therefore, for those who have knowledge with the solution, it's straightforward, however, newer users would find it possibly a bit complex. 

I'm not sure how many people would be required to maintain the solution. 

I haven't gotten a chance to evaluate this solution in comparison to others. For example, I've never been able to compare Object Storage on AWS.

The company I worked for was a Microsoft gold partner. We were Azure partners as well. 

We use a private cloud deployment. There were some sensitive products that were supposed to only be available as a part of the private cloud, even though they were in the Azure cloud, they were fully accessible from the internal network.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use this solution to store images and Excel files.

We used to use an on premise file system and the maintenance of on a premise server is difficult. This is why we migrated to Azure storage. Using this solution has reduced our maintenance time and cost. 

The file retention and object retention have been most valuable.

Uploading files from the UI has presented some issues. When editing work and once you delete a file, it takes some time to recreate the same file. If I have an ABC file and if I delete it and I want to recreate the file again with the same name, it is not immediate. There is at a least 30 seconds or one-minute delay.

We have been using this solution for three years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. We have specifically configured it for scalability. 

We have reached out for technical support but not directly related to Azure Storage. We had a Logic app and we tried to connect it to Azure Storage. They provided a solution but it was not a limitation of Azure Storage and rather a limitation of the Logic app.

I would rate the support for this solution a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. We had no issues with the deployment because we used GitHub Action, Azure DevOps, terraforms as well as AMS scripts to build and deploy. Deployment did not take more than a minute.

We have used a pricing calculator to find out the general pricing for our clients. 

I would recommend this solution to those who already have an on-premise file system and who want to migrate to a cloud-native solution. This solution offers scalability at a lower cost and additional benefits compared with an on-premise file server.

My job title is DevOps Cloud Infra, Cloud Engineer. I am an expert in Microsoft Azure Cloud and telecom. 

Inside the storage account, we use Blob Storage, mostly to store VM data, discs, and logs. We also use FileShare as an additional disc.

The features of Microsoft Azure Object Storage that are most valuable are the ones providing encryption.  Access is more controlled using private endpoints and SaaS token keys. Many access control features exist. 

I also enjoy the size of the Blob Storage, it can store up to three gigs. Another good feature is that we can host 10 static websites.

The solution needs to improve the custom domain integration with static web pages. Even though Blog Storage is providing the static content hosting feature, due to the custom domain availability, the integration is not available. In most cases, we withdraw from that service and use our app service to host our static data feeds.

For future releases, I would like to see the graphical representation of the Blob Storage and the analytics to be in the value review panel so we can go to the cost in subscriptions to get them. We need some graphs with the presentations.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage for four years.

The solution has been stable for us.

There has been no issue with scalability with this product when accessing or adding users. However, we noticed that when we generated SaaS, it is at the storage account level. This should be specific to containers. However, whenever we change the container name without changing the whole key, it works.

The solution is specific to the application and not personal usage. For most applications, I see between one or two storage accounts. Most people are logging log storage and diagnostic storage. 

During the initial setup of Microsoft Azure Object Storage, we used File Explore, so it was not that difficult. It was via GUI, which was helpful. One challenge was when using the command CLI because it was new to us. Over time, we are ok with CLI too.

We have seen a positive return on our investment in this solution. We just need to make sure we clean up our storage and services which are not used.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage requires a license. We use a pay-as-you-go model and we have an enterprise subscription model as well.

The solution is not expensive, however, when compared to other enterprise, pay-as-you-go products, it is priced higher. 

I would recommend Microsoft Azure Object Storage to anyone considering implementing this solution. The UI is easy to manage. When you go inside Blob, it looks just like your local File Explorer. Also, you can feel confident that encryption is there.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Object Storage an eight out of ten overall.