Microsoft Azure Block Storage Reviews

The use case for Microsoft Azure Block Storage depends on the project and the users. Still, I use it for storing and extracting data, such as images, videos, and documents.

What I like best about Microsoft Azure Block Storage is the accessibility because it's very easy for me to access it. Microsoft takes the user's approach, so you don't have to take many steps before accessing the tool. As soon as you create Microsoft Azure Block Storage resources, you'll automatically find it easy to use it.

If you need to learn how to start, you'll find different resources and documentation about the tool, so this is another pro of Microsoft Azure Block Storage.

Another advantage of using the tool is that it's convenient because if you want to deploy new infrastructure, you can connect to the cloud and download the files to your new site.

I found that everything works fine in Microsoft Azure Block Storage; though it may be because I have less experience with it, I cannot give any areas for improvement.

I want to see my region added to the data center. I'm in Africa, and if a data center is specifically added under Central Africa, that will reduce data latency when accessing data. Right now, you can only find the USA, China, Europe, South Africa, and Egypt, but no Central Africa. It'll be great if Microsoft can add my region or location as a data center for Microsoft Azure Block Storage. Doing that will respect privacy, too.

I've used Microsoft Azure Block Storage for six months. It depends on the project I'm working on.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is scalable. When you use Azure File Sync, Microsoft gives you five terabytes of storage on Microsoft Azure Block Storage. You can scale by paying for a group or a big enterprise if you have a considerable amount of data.

I didn't have to contact the technical support team of Microsoft Azure Block Storage because I had all that I needed from the documentation.

I didn't use a different solution. I only used Microsoft Azure Block Storage. You can integrate it with various services, and it has the facility to connect to your site and communicate with it, but I don't require that. Enterprises can use that functionality of Microsoft Azure Block Storage, though.

Setting up Microsoft Azure Block Storage was easy, and it only took two minutes. I researched how to do it, but before you set up Microsoft Azure Block Storage, you must create your agile accounts first, and inside the agile accounts, you'll find different types of storage. In my case, I chose Microsoft Azure Block Storage for data storage and extraction. It was easy to set up.

I deployed Microsoft Azure Block Storage.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is a good investment. The tool helps an enterprise save data in the cloud. Sometimes there is a natural disaster, or your electricity is cut off. Sometimes your physical servers can have problems. You can store data in the cloud through Microsoft Azure Block Storage to avoid problems, so it's a good investment.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage is not an expensive tool. I'm subscribed to the Microsoft Learn Student Ambassadors program, so Microsoft gives me between $120 to $150 credit each month. It's renewable, and if I use that credit for Microsoft Azure Block Storage, it'll not consume half of my credit, so I'd say it's very cheap.

I use Microsoft Azure Block Storage personally. My company doesn't use it.

I recommend the tool to others who want to use it.

Based on my experience, I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage nine out of ten.

We use the tool to connect with Power BI to make visualizations. We also use it to store data.

The product’s security features are valuable.

The user interface is very difficult. It is not user-friendly. We need time to understand the product and create a container. It would be nice if the user interface were made simpler. The documentation is difficult to understand. There are no videos on the website. It is difficult for a new user to understand the solution.

I have been using the solution for one year and three months.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. We might have 500 to 1000 users in our organization.

I connect with our internal team for access issues.

Positive

Amazon’s UI is very simple. We can directly create a function in Amazon S3.

The initial setup is difficult. It is very difficult to identify the things we need. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. Deploying the solution takes less than a minute, but the process is difficult.

The product is costlier than Amazon S3.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

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.

I present block storage to virtual servers and putting some applications on it.

The most valuable part of Microsoft Azure is its scalability and availability, which make it easy to work with. Redundancy is available by default, meaning it is a seamless experience without additional setup. These features make Microsoft Azure versatile and reliable for block storage.

At the moment, I do not have anything specific in mind for improvements. The most important thing for me is accessibility and easy provisioning to multiple servers with different vendors.

I have been working with Azure Block Storage for four months.

The stability of block storage could be rated as nine out of ten.

Scalability should be rated as seven or eight out of ten. It is a significant advantage of the product.

The technical support could be rated as seven or eight out of ten. The speed of resolving issues could be improved, as it sometimes takes time.

Positive

I was previously working with VMware products and am now working in the public cloud with Microsoft Azure.

The initial setup depends on the environment itself, yet, overall it is easy.

Pricing could be rated as eight out of ten. It is reasonable, however, it can be cheaper.

I do not have experience with AWS or Google.

Overall, I would rate block storage as a six out of ten. I can recommend block storage to other users as it is suitable for any company size, from small to enterprise level, due to its scalability.

We use the solution for several key purposes: first, as a source code repository; second, for software testing life cycle management, including test cases and bug tracking; and third, for deploying our projects through pipelines, supporting continuous deployment and continuous integration.

Microsoft Azure Block Storage has high-security features and is very reliable. Its maintenance is done through the cloud, which reduces costs. 

Microsoft Azure Block Storage needs to improve its migration and reporting processes. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has 35-50 users. 

We chose Microsoft Azure Blob Storage because we've been using their solutions for a long time, starting from Team Foundation Server since 2010 and even earlier with Visual SourceSafe. We kept upgrading versions, which led us to adopt Azure Cloud. Additionally, the licensing cost was favorable for us. 

Deploying the tool is easy, but we encountered challenges while migrating our old repositories from EFS 2015 and 2019. The main issue was that we had to migrate the entire default collection to do it properly, and there wasn't a straightforward way to handle this. For example, while test cases must be migrated through the default collection, repositories for source code can be migrated alone, which poses a significant challenge for us.

It generally took more than a day to set up and plan everything for on-premises setup. For cloud installations, it was easier because you could pick items from Microsoft storage or repositories and switch them on. However, final configurations for pipelines and other elements still require significant time.

We expect ROI through cost reduction after three years. 

I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten. 

I rate Microsoft Azure Block Storage a ten 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.