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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is integrated into the applications that we provide our customers. Job dockets, regulatory documents, licenses, and insurance-related are the most common types of documents that our application users store in their storage containers. 

Apart from that, the job docket probably moves from one person to another and only authorized users can have access to view or download using a secure URL with a token and the shared access signature. This comes with an important feature that allows us to limit the time the users have access to the files on the storage.

Another aspect we have is for internal purposes, like having database backups over specific timelines. Internal application docket messages between the web and mobile application users including attachments that can be retained or archived for several years. All of this works under a multi-tenant structure.

The best thing is that it's on the cloud and accessible through any mobile, tablet, or laptop device. Easily configurable and integrated with any of our applications through its client libraries. 

Secure and having the option to setup additional regions for high availability.

.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Object Storage consistently for the past two years. 

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is stable. I haven't had any issues. Initially, when I was conducting hands-on workshops in the past few years most of the client-side libraries used to connect with Azure Storage have become obsolete and the newly updated libraries are simple and easy to work with.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a scalable solution. I believe this will grow, just like AWS, because it's totally isolated, and even websites could use that separately. I think Azure is beginning to take that path where other applications could directly connect to it and use the storage system. I believe there is a feature to interconnect all the other products they have.

The initial setup was quick. You definitely need some help with that, and Microsoft provides resources for learning. I have in the past attended workshops that came in handy when working with this solution. It's easy to use if you have some hands-on experience. There are online courses with hands-on labs available in some cases on Microsoft Learn which makes understanding and using this solution easier.

Pay per-use subscription has been our option and I see no problem using this subscription model as we are able to keep track of our costs on a daily basis

I used the solution for email and messaging.

The layout of Microsoft is professional. It is suitable for office purposes.

The product hangs sometimes. The password retrieval process was very difficult.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool’s stability has improved. It is much better now. It was not good 10 to 12 years ago. It used to freeze a lot. The UI has improved a lot.

The tool’s scalability is good.

The setup was complex. We created an account and decided on ways to retrieve passwords. We must also add our mobile number to the account.

I could do the deployment myself.

Google is better than Microsoft. Google's password retrieval process is very easy. However, Microsoft's layout and setup are much more professional. Google is much more user-friendly and interactive. Google is more secure than Microsoft. I often get emails on Microsoft that someone is trying to access my account.

I worked for a company that was a Microsoft Gold partner. I will not recommend the product to others. Google is a better tool. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

It's a platform we're currently adapting for various scenarios like development, deployment, and security needs for new solutions. 

The performance of the solution is good. It’s also good in terms of Information Security (IS) and structured services.

I have been using this solution for the past three years.

The solution is stable. It works fine for us.

We plan to increase the further usage depending on the customer's requirements. 

The operations team handles the support. If they need anything, they deal with it directly, and I haven't heard any complaints.

The initial setup is straightforward. It’s deployed on the cloud.

Our storage capacity is cheap because we have a committed discount. 

I recommend it. However, it depends on the specific use cases and existing environments. For new users, especially, it is a good start. 

However, those with several years of industry experience should thoroughly analyze requirements to determine which suits them better. 

Overall, I rate this solution a seven out of ten.