Microsoft Azure Object Storage Reviews

Microsoft Azure Object Storage offers hassle-free usage. It is easy to configure. 

The product is expensive.

I have been working with the solution for a year. 

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has more than 100 users who use it 24/7.  

Microsoft support's turnaround time is high, and its documentation is good. Sometimes, the person who is assigned a ticket is not an expert. 

I rate the product's setup a nine out of ten. The deployment team had around 20 members. 

Encryption feature is an add-on. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use the product for all kinds of images and static data. 

The tool's most valuable feature is performance. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to increase its response time from 25,000 per second to 40,000 or 50,000. 

I have been using the solution for nine years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has 100 users for Microsoft Azure Object Storage. 

The solution's support is good enough for us. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage's deployment is straightforward. 

We deployed the solution in-house. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not expensive. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

We use Microsoft Azure Object Storage for our data streams and logs. We bring all our live data streams and store them in Microsoft Azure Object Storage. When the files are added to the folder, the Lambda series will kick in, and then we will run and train the models with new data and publish the results. The outputs will be written to Snowflake.

What I like most about Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that you have many ways to access it.

I have no complaints about Microsoft Azure Object Storage, but maybe its market size could be more extensive, and its backup speed enhanced. My company is still building an amenity, so I have yet to review what went wrong with the current stack. My team will document anything that's not developed as technical learning.

One limitation of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that you can only use it if your data does not change. If your data is in a file, you also use Microsoft Azure Object Storage. The solution is not meant for data that you need to update.

I've been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage since 2011.

My rating for Microsoft Azure Object Storage in terms of stability is nine out of ten.

The scalability of Microsoft Azure Object Storage depends on the use case and how an aspect of the solution can be leveraged as data storage on public storage. Still, based on my use case, Microsoft Azure Object Storage is scalable.

My experience is with Microsoft Azure Object Storage developer support for real-time issues, particularly support from the Microsoft Azure portal. It's a seven out of ten support-wise because it could be far better. I'm aware that many issues can arise from availability, but my team was able to manage, so I rate it as seven. Otherwise, I would have given the support a four or five.

Neutral

I used AWS and found Microsoft Azure Object Storage more mature than AWS because, database-wise, Microsoft Azure Object Storage is more well-known, so I prefer it over AWS, and my company went with it.

From a service point of view, on the other hand, AWS is better than Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure Object Storage in terms of integration and data storage. AWS is also more comfortable for memory and virtual machines, but Google Cloud is better for data workflows.

I found Microsoft Azure Object Storage simple to set up, but it depends on how well you know the service. If you know the service, then setting it up is pretty straightforward, but if you do not know Microsoft Azure Object Storage, you first need to understand how it's meant to be implemented. For me, setting up the solution is easy.

We do the deployments for Microsoft Azure Object Storage. We test the development in-house, as we have our infrastructure.

The pricing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is high and needs some reduction. It's a seven out of ten, price-wise, because it currently limits your consumption, so the solution should have better pricing. The pricing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage should be more flexible for clients.

I evaluated AWS and GCP.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is currently deployed on a private cloud, but my company will eventually deploy it on the public cloud.

My company doesn't have direct users accessing Microsoft Azure Object Storage because the target is to write data on it on the object bucket.

I can recommend Microsoft Azure Object Storage to others, but I'll base my recommendation on the use case.

Based on what I'm using it for, my rating for the solution is nine out of ten.

My parent company has a partnership with Microsoft Azure Object Storage.

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.

I use the solution in my company for business applications and to move content.

I can't speak about the specific features I like about the product, but I know that it was used for our company's processes. The most valuable features of the solution are related to its ease of use and performance.

The stability of the product is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been Microsoft Azure Object Storage for 7 years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Scalability-wise, my company didn't face any issues. I rate the solution's scalability out of seven out of ten.

It is not a tool used by users since it is for the system. The front-end system uses the storage.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward.

For the product's deployment phase, my company used CI/CD pipelines and the DevOps process, but the storage can be accessed through laptops and Azure Storage Explorer, which was a great feature.

The product was deployed with the help of our company's in-house team.

The product works on a real-time and optimized basis. The scalability offered by the product is one of its benefits. You don't have to wait for your company's infrastructure team to increase the storage, as it can grow on its own.

The tool has a pay-per-use pricing model. You need to pay for what you are consuming. It is not a complex model. It is not an expensive product. There is no need to pay extra money for the licensing costs since the price is based on the storage you consume.

The tool is useful for our company's client engagement and for the automation of their business applications.

The product's security measures are good. I rate the tool's security measures an eight out of ten.

Speaking about the integration capabilities of the product, I can say that my company serves as a system integrator of the tool for our clients.

The product integrates with our customers' existing ecosystems.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a straightforward product that is available with good documentation and is useful for a good number of use cases. I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool a seven or eight 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. 

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.