Microsoft Azure Object Storage Reviews

The storage account is one of the primary components in all implementations, including cloud implementations. It is a common resource in Azure.

We mostly work with Blob Storage, and it is a very good resource for unstructured storage. Blob Storage is one of the best resources in Azure for storing unstructured data such as files, video files, audio files, and Excel files. Currently, Blob Storage is the cheapest and best solution, with very good features for unstructured data.

One of the things that are currently important is consistency. To achieve this, another database called Cosmos DB is available. We want to have a similar consistency to the one in Cosmos DB but at a cheaper price. Although Cosmos DB is known to be expensive, it has a guaranteed consistency level of 99.99%. I want Microsoft to explore how they can provide the same consistency level as Cosmos DB but at a lower cost. Speaking of consistency, we are currently using GRS or GZRS as our storage redundancy types. It would be great if we could achieve the same guaranteed consistency level as with Cosmos DB. It would be of great use if we could apply the same approach to our storage account.

Currently, I do not have any suggestions regarding Blob Storage. The storage account allows for storing VHD, which is a type of blob, along with other blob types, such as append blobs and page blobs. These blob types are already well-matured designs, and I don't have any suggestions. The storage account also offers different tiers, such as cool, hot, and archive tiers, as per the access. These features meet the needs of data and application engineers for storing data. Mostly, it has all the features to meet the current requirements, and it is one of the well-designed resources from Microsoft.

I work with an Azure storage account that includes a blob bin and file storage. I have used Azure Blob Storage for almost five years. Also, I am not sure if we are partners with Microsoft since I joined a month ago.

For stability, I rate it a nine out of ten. This is because it offers one of the best features. Also, I have not faced any complaints regarding the storage account in my five years of experience. There might be other resources I feel that I couldn't access or have some service-related issues. But, I didn't face any issues with the storage account.

I rate the solution nine out of ten in terms of its ability to scale. Since it is a management service, we should not bother about scaling. This is because we have a very good scaling policy for management services. As I recently joined the organization, I am not aware of how many employees are currently using this solution.

The technical support you receive depends on the plan you choose, whether it is the basic plan, standard plan, or premium plan. In my current organization, we have a premium plan for which the technical support is awesome. I raised three tickets with the technical support team while using the premium plan and received the best support from Microsoft. So, I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I am working with AWS, Azure, and GCP, but my major contribution to the cloud is towards Azure.

It is a very simple process.

Currently, it is a flexible price policy.

Amazon S3 is equivalent to Azure Storage accounts, as they offer almost the same features. Based on my experience, I find Azure to be a more comfortable tool to work with compared to Amazon S3. The UI is better designed, and I could easily understand the features and other things. Therefore, even though the two solutions are similar, I rate the storage account solution higher than Amazon S3.

It is one of the best features or resources, especially for people who want to use Blob Storage for unstructured data. For us, it is a very cost-effective resource since we can understand it easily. I haven't experienced any issues with this solution for the past five to six years. I rate this solution a nine 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.

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.

Azure Object Storage is basically for storing files - if you want to process certain files. It's useful for if you want to keep images or some documents. I use it for that purpose as well.

We like the indexing feature.

The performance has been good. We haven't had any issues. 

The security has been fine.

Everything we need is already pretty much there.

It is very scalable. 

Technical support has been excellent. 

We are not missing any features. 

We would like it if we did not have to use another encryption solution to encrypt the storage. 

We've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

It's reliable and it performs well. it's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's scalable. We can increase storage as required. 

Azure Object Storage is mapped with a user. It's mapped to the server for storing files and all. So IOPS storage, probably we can talk 20,000 to 30,000 IOPS.

We monitor the usage based on there being increases.

Technical support is very good and very sound. 

Positive

There's not really an installation. It's a mapping solution. It's on the cloud. 

We have a common cloud team. They do any maintenance. It's a common cloud team who provisions the server, who manages the storage, who assigns the storage to the server. They do everything. We don't have a separate team.

I can't speak to the exact licensing costs. 

As a cloud-based solution, we are always on the latest version. It stays up-to-date.

I'd recommend the product to other users and organizations. 

Overall, I would rate the product ten out of ten. 

There are a couple of different use cases. One is a cheaper form of storage and also robust protection of data. We also use it for its immutability. If you have enough copies, then it will always be available.

Storage accounts are used for things like logic analyzers that feed into the different archives. It also feeds into Azure Backup. You can peer into different levels of the archive.

The solution can be quite slow. 

Having some sort of caching algorithm could be quite good so that it is placed on the edge of the customer network. But this will lead you back to on-premise infrastructure, so it cannot fix the whole cloud.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage for a few years now, but it's very sporadic.

I would rate the stability of this solution an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I contacted technical support a few times. Our technical support is under a premium plan. They were very good.

Positive

The initial setup is fairly easy. It's not difficult. It is mainly a hybrid solution.

I would rate the pricing a four out of ten because there is a lot of competition out there.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Object Storage a six 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.