Microsoft Azure Object Storage Reviews

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.

We use the solution on multiple levels. We deploy at the product level, production, and internal use cases.

The most valuable features of the solution are its performance and stability.

Since the solution is messy and heavy, it needs to be faster in terms of speed and latency.

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

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

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a scalable solution. Around 60 people use the solution extensively in our organization.

The solution provides good technical support.

The solution’s initial setup is a little complex. Around 15 technical staff are required for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a stable product with good enough uptime.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an expensive solution. We need to pay a monthly licensing fee for the solution. We need to pay extra setup cost in addition to the standard licensing fees.

We use the enterprise version of the solution. I would recommend the solution to people who have a Microsoft ecosystem.

Overall, I rate the solution an 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.

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. 

Neutral

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. 

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. 

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.