Microsoft Azure Block Storage Reviews

Most of the time, we store logs in the Block Storage. Mostly we use it to store the plant logs. 

The storage is very good.

It offers good pricing on that we pay for what we use and nothing more. 

The setup is straightforward. 

It's scalable. 

The solution should provide more training so that we can learn about and take advantage of more features. As it is, right now, we have to pay for training.

It could be easier to use. 

The product is not as stable as we would like it to be. 

I've been using the solution for the last six months. 

Sometimes services from Azure go down. Azure needs to improve their services to ensure there is no downtime. It's not as stable as we would like it to be 

We have a dedicated team of ten to 15 people managing the solution. 

We do have plans to increase usage at this point. 

It is a scalable product.

We have a partner who has helped us with technical problems. We have very limited hours with Microsoft. We can use only use them in the terms of absolutely critical events. Mostly, we are connecting with partners who can help us if we are stuck.

I'm also familiar with AWS S3. 

We have not really used any other solutions in the past. 

The implementation process is very simple and straightforward. I do not find it to be complex. There might be a few things here or there during setup that may be a little complex. However, it is not hard to get up and running. 

Initially, it took us three or four days to begin deployment as we had to watch some videos and go through the documentation. 

To deploy the solution, we had to first log in the Azure, then we had to create an Azure account. Once we created the account, we had to start creating storage and setting up the configuration of the storage logs. It takes time during the initial phase.

While we do not need any technical staff at this time, in the coming months, we are planning to enhance things and add in new requirements. We'll be increasing our infra and our storage, and that may require two or three more people to handle that process. 

We handled the setup process in-house. We did not use consultants. 

We pay only for how much we have used. In contrast, in the case of S3 in AWS, we paid the whole amount, even if we didn't use it all. In this case, we can pay only for the utilization of the Block Storage.

We have three licenses at this time and pay an annual subscription. 

It's not overly expensive. The pricing is somewhere in the middle if you compare it to what is on the market. 

We are using the latest version of the solution - whatever Microsoft provides.

Once Microsoft improves services a bit - including improving stability - I would recommend them. 

I'd rate the product five out of ten at this time. 

Block Storage can be used for storing files of varying formats. It can be used as an object storage as well, so people can dump a variety of files into it. It's called a storage account, actually. This storage account can be used to store any application-specific files and there could be different Azure services which can consume the files, like that storage account, as part of the architecture. There could be an application storing the data, and there could be some other service that picks those files up from there. This solution is part of that entire architecture. It's kind of similar to a history you have in a website. It is almost exactly the same as that.

It has capabilities such as versioning and, from a security point of view, you can also back it up. It has resiliency features as well.

You can have GRS, like a during and end storage feature, enabled so that it can be replicated to a secondary region in Azure. This can prevent an outage in the primary region. 

There is a drawback or limitation to the GRS storage feature because depending on the amount of data, it could take a lot of time. There are a lot of steps from the application perspective, so it's not easy and straightforward from a business continuity perspective. That is one of the limitations I see in the solution. 

It's about the time it takes to revert back. The failover takes a couple of minutes but then it takes a lot of time to fail it back to the primary region again, so you have to do a synchronization again. That's a bit of a challenge because if it contains a lot of data in terabytes, the cost to do a replication again but reverse the direction from secondary to primary is a bit extra. Obviously, though, this only happens when there is an out, when a DR is involved, so it's not very often that companies would come across this. It's only in the worst case scenario. 

It's not a big thing, but some companies have limited time for their DR, like there's a RPO, or a recovery point objective and recovery time objective, that is very short. In that case, this product may not be suitable or may not meet their customer's requirements. That is something that Microsoft should focus on, to bring the time down or make that process, the DR process, a bit easier for this product. Maybe as they continually improve this product they can add improvements in this aspect to reduce that DR time, recovery time, for the solution.

I have been working with this product for about four or five years.

I have seen this solution be pretty stable. I've never had an issue with it. I'd rate the stability as a five out of five. 

It's very scalable. It has really high limits, so I don't think most customers will hit that limit. I'll give it a five out of five for scalability. 

Big enterprises as well as medium enterprises use this solution, and even smaller enterprises. There are organizations with 100 users, 1000, and even some with 5000 and above. There could be only applications consuming this, or end users also, but the end users directly connecting to the solution are a lot less.

It's mostly the developers who configure the application to use this solution as the object storage. Eventually, the end users of the application could be in the 1000s, and they utilize this back end solution via the application, so it is getting utilized by the end users, but it's via the application.

There was one issue I had with the backup. I didn't get a proper response and it took a couple of days for the response. It turned out to be a restriction and limitation, so it didn't get solved, but I was told that it was a limitation. I would rate the technical support as a three out of five.

The solution can be deployed manually from the Azure portal, or it can be done programmatically, via code. The setup is very easy and straightforward. It only takes a few minutes. I rate it a five out of five. 

I have deployed this solution for customers, and just one person is required for deployment. Anybody who has knowledge of Azure and has some administrative experience in Azure can do this. It's a very straightforward solution to deploy.

There is hardly any configuration in this solution, so it's maybe a day's task to deploy, but not beyond that. Once the design for this product is confirmed and completed, then the deployment is just following those design inputs which have been already signed off on by the customer. Customer requirements and specific features that need to be enabled in this tool need to be finalized first, which happens in the design phase. Once all of that is finalized, deploying it with the agreed configuration can be done in a day, max.

It's fairly cheap and it's also fully managed by Microsoft, so you don't have to manage the storage as much.

The solution is pay as you go, so it depends on the amount of data that is stored and the transactions. There's no licensing requirements. Also, we can have a subscription, like reservations for the storage. If we have a lot of data, then that can help reduce the cost, at least to some extent. The technical support is part of the support plan. 

The price depends on each customer. If they use a lot of data, the cost can be very high. I think it would be the same case with other tools as well, though, so it is quite affordable. 

The solution has life-cycle management, versioning, and a lot of protection features like sub-delete and all of that. It's pretty much complete, so it satisfies most of my customers' needs and requirements. I recommend this product because it is straightforward and well-documented.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten.

Azure Block Storage is for integrating and storing logs and things like that. It's for short and medium-term intermediate storage. Around 3,000 people are using the solution indirectly. 

The security is poor, and the sharing model is confusing, conceptually. I'd prefer not to use it. I'd like a user-friendly web interface and a better security model. 

I've worked with Azure Block Storage for a few years. 

The block storage itself is good, but Azure's overall reliability is poor, especially in this region. It usually goes down a couple of times a month. 

I rate Azure support six out of 10. It could be better. I get an answer, but it takes a while. 

Neutral

The other solution we use heavily is Google Cloud Storage. I prefer Google because it's easier to set up and you don't need to download a client. It's just simpler overall.

Everyone is familiar with the Google interface. It's essential because you're dealing with a lot of technologies, and people don't have the time anymore to figure it out.

Setting up Azure Block Storage is more complex than it should be.

The price is decent. I rate Azure Block Storage eight out of 10 for affordability.

I rate Azure Block Storage three out of 10. It's just storage, and it's more complicated than it needs to be. 

We use the solution for application hosting only - in terms of giving an application which is serving to some customers, for a particular location service. 

From a UI perspective, we like the workflows. Its look and feel are quite good. 

The initial setup is quite simple and straightforward, especially if you have IT knowledge. 

It is very flexible and scalable. It's very easy to adjust the data. 

The stability is good.

As a technology product, it's always evolving. There are some feature challenges from my side, however, I am hopeful they will fix the issues. 

The integrations right now are limited, however, we are hopeful this will improve as the cloud continues to develop. We would like to see more capabilities in specifically hybrid scenarios. There are some third-party tools in Oracle and Linux we'd like to have access to via this product.

We'd like more failover capabilities or data recovery options. 

I've been using the solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. There are no issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

It is a scalable solution. If you need to expand it, it's not a problem. 

We have about 50 users on this solution currently.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not very complex. It's much easier if you do some planning and can anticipate some outcomes. Doing that work makes everything easier as you do the implementation. Those with IT backgrounds will find it easier to handle the setup as opposed to those who are not so technical.

The pricing varies. You might have different pricing, for example, in relation to your country or region. It's not standard. We pay around $300 to $400 a month for some scenarios where consumption is limited. However, going forward, we're seeing the likelihood of the cost coming to around $2,000 as consumption rises. 

We have never actually attempted to evaluate this solution in comparison to others. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

I would rate it eight out of ten.

We are using Microsoft Azure Block Storage primarily for transferring data through the FTP. The system stores data that is sent to it and we create information reports going out. Additionally, we store data from logic applications and message logs in a storage channel.

We have different deployments of the solution, such as hybrid, cloud, and on-premise.

One of our clients is utilizing an on-premise warehouse management system with two interconnected data centers for data transfer, ensuring disaster recovery. Their system utilizes JDA web query due to its seamless integration with their warehouse machines. To enhance their operations, they have hired Azure-implemented API-driven solutions using logic apps and other tools. 

We are using Power BI and data gateway to extract data from Oracle tables and databases. While we try to utilize logistic data to answer queries, we have a series of APIs available, which they often call upon using established logic apps.

The solution can be used for many purposes it is flexible.

The most helpful features of Microsoft Azure Block Storage are the many use cases. Additionally, it can be locked down well and has two-factor authentication.

The solution has been improving over the time I have used it with new features, such as private links and managing identities.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage could improve the SFTP. The SFTP can be used for exchanging data between two parties and it works but Microsoft is new to this market and they could be a lot better in this area with its features.

The querying could be improved in the storage system. SQL is a fundamental technology but there are only partition rules and row IDs, and it is slow to query the data.

The day and time stamps are not indexed in any way which makes it very slow. Additionally, if you wanted to remove all the data over a month, there is no option to do so. There are areas that the solution can improve on in the future.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Block Storage for approximately four years.

The stability of Microsoft Azure Block Storage is good, I have not had an issue.

The solution is highly scalable and there are not a lot of limits. However, you do have to pay money for scalability.

We've never had to seek support for setup for Microsoft Azure Block Storage as it has always been relatively simple. With numerous YouTube videos and Microsoft Learn providing active examples, we were able to set everything up with ease. In most cases, the instructions were straightforward, and we only needed to follow them.

Having used Amazon S3 before, Microsoft Azure Block Storage is superior because it offers much more than just block storage. It has various other functionalities, allowing users to store files, tables, media, and more. It's a versatile storage solution that we're using for content delivery networks, coupled with the Microsoft content delivery network. Overall, it's an excellent storage management solution.

The solution is easy to set up.

The price of scaling the solution is not expensive.

I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage a nine out of ten.

We are using the solution for storage purposes.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is an easy-to-use solution. Storing and then retrieving data are the most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Block Storage.

The solution’s user interface could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Block Storage for three to four years.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is a stable solution.

I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage a nine out of ten for stability.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is a highly scalable solution. Most of our clients for Microsoft Azure Block Storage are medium and large sized businesses.

I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage an eight out of ten for scalability.

I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage a nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment doesn't take much time and can be done in a few minutes.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six or seven out of ten.

We are using the latest version of Microsoft Azure Block Storage.

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

We use the tool for static website hosting and log storage. My company also uses it to store static information, and as a backup solution to store files.

I like the product’s versioning and file share features. The file share feature is most useful when we are connecting on-premises services. Azure file share helps to migrate small data amounts from on-premises to the cloud.

I find the user interface of newer versions, particularly, the flows, not user-friendly. The UI of Azure’s initial version was very comfortable. I didn’t have to remember floor menus. I knew where I had to go to see the logs or grab configuration parameters.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The tool’s stability is fine and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

I would rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten. The product has become a common requirement for all projects. Almost all people in my company use it. There are more than 100 users for the solution in our company. We are a startup, and not a big company.

The solution’s support is very helpful. Whenever I am at a dead end or need help, I would seek the product’s support which is like an ex-colleague to me. I had had some incidents where there were outages.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is simple and straightforward.

The tool’s deployment was done by our in-house team members.

I would rate the solution’s pricing a nine out of ten and it’s cheaper than Amazon S3.

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. Azure has better usability and user experience compared to Amazon S3. Both products have similar functionality and I would say that both of them have reached saturation. S3’s storage account is also costlier compared to Azure. S3 is also complex in configuration and UI is not user-friendly like Azure.

We use it for high-speed data and a very critical mission.

Block storage is typically used when you have structured data. For example, RDP systems like SQL Oracle and the SQL DB tool. If you have structured data, you need Microsoft Azure Block Storage.

The solution should also support unstructured data. There is a different file format for unstructured data. It would also be good if the solution notification features.

We have been using this solution for three years. Microsoft Azure Block Storage is deployed as per the requirement. It can be deployed independently and supports every kind of deployment.

It is very stable, and I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is scalable, and I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support is very good.

The setup is not as simple as File Storage, and it requires a lot of investment because block storage requires a high-speed network, and you have to deploy a lot of fibre cables. It is also costly and not cheap compared to Internet-based networks. So the initial investment cost for deploying the block storage is very expensive.

The price depends on the requirement. If the data is critical, you must deploy block storage. But if it is not that critical, you can choose cheaper storage options. I rate the pricing for Microsoft Azure Block Storage a two out of ten.

Multiple vendors offer good block storage solutions, such as BMC Storage, NetApp Storage, Azure, Google and Oracle. Microsoft Azure Block Storage is deployed for mission-critical and business-critical data. When deploying these kinds of data, you must have a data center to control moving the data and allow multiple storages. You can know where the data is stored, which software controls the data, and who manages your data. But for cloud, the customer does not have any visibility or know who is responsible for managing data or whether it's secured. Therefore, transparency, control and storage deployment is significant.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten, and I would recommend this to others.