If we look at the different versions of that ADLS, it really does not have a hierarchical storage mechanism. If you want to store any document, you have to go and create one blob storage account, in case you want to store any hierarchical data. 

The solution's stability should be improved.

The tool should be a little bit cheaper.

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.

In future releases, I would add something like a better lifecycle management system, and for integration purposes, I would add some stuff related to newer concepts like data products and databases. I would like to have a seamless flow between those things.

The solution’s stability could be improved.

The product is expensive.

Our current Azure setup faces challenges with API connectivity, particularly due to misconfigurations related to changes in Azure Graph. Version disparities in APIs and duplicated features have been flagged by Microsoft, complicating security updates. To enhance efficiency, we need improvements in the configuration process, ensuring a smoother integration of our solutions with Azure services. Additionally, naming and access control have been a bit challenging. While we start by setting private access for files in Blob Storage, syncing becomes an issue when making the Blob solution publicly accessible. It is like the Linux system, where granting access to an upper folder doesn't automatically cover internal files. Unlike Windows, here we need to be more specific about access, making it a bit tricky to manage.

We are not missing any features. 

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

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.

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.

The stability could be improved.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to increase its response time from 25,000 per second to 40,000 or 50,000. 

.

The efficiency depends on various operations, and therefore, it should involve multiple vendor support.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to improve stability and cloud user interface. 

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.

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.

Currently, the Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer is just a Windows app. I don't know if it's available on mobile, such as iOS or Android. I don't know if the app is mobile-friendly. It should be mobile-friendly.

The solution should integrate better with other vendors and products. 

A more comprehensive training option is needed. 

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.

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.

The initial setup is not easy to understand and the scalability can be improved.

As of now, we don't see any room for improvement in Azure Object Storage. It meets our storage needs perfectly, and since we primarily use it for storage purposes without encountering any issues, there aren't any specific areas we feel need improvement. It works well for our current requirements.

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

We're still testing the solution. It's too early to make any suggestions as to what may be missing.

The pricing of the solution can be improved. 

Support and cost are areas that can be improved. The cost of support is always expensive.

They can be more competitive in their pricing and the data center doesn't compare to other solutions such as Google. Microsoft is still growing. In the Middle East and these areas, there is less support.

Technical support should be a little bit faster.

The cost should be reduced to make it more competitive. There are other vendors that provide good solutions, so if Microsoft were more competitive in terms of pricing then it would be one reason for us to continue with them.

I would like to have out-of-the-box connectors to make integration with other products easier.

The product's cost needs improvement during the POC stage. Additionally, its user interface could be better compared to AWS and GCP.

We have experienced a data copy bottleneck with the AZ copy using Microsoft Azure Object Storage, this should improve. It has high CPU consumption. There are a couple of ways to copy files fast, we have tried a few ways. Other than AZ copy, we can use Azure Fluent Storage, which also takes a lot of time to copy files. The AZ copy is faster but it takes a lot of time and CPU operations.

Microsoft Storage Explorer is used for connectivity but it needs to be improved.

On the backend side, it is not an easy implementation, and if they introduced a solution roadmap, that would be great.

Object Storage's integration with other backup software could be improved.

Technical support should be faster at resolving issues for tickets that we create.

There are a lot of points for improvement at the moment.

 For example, in the case of this product, we are not able to do a backup of what we call NAS, network-attached storage appliances, directly to the cloud. We can do to all the repositories in our premises on the storage that we have here, however, it's not possible to entirely upload this to the cloud. To me, this is the major problem of this solution, at the moment. 

There are other problems that I imagine other solutions can have the problems too, for example, there are some errors if the network is unstable and there are network failures sometimes, and it's not easy to recover data. 

The administration of the solution is not as easy as we would like it to be.

They could improve AI and ML-based modules. They should add more modules based on artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Pricing is a little bit tricky with Microsoft Azure. They do provide the estimates, but it is not easy to guess the exact amount that we will be billed after a month or two because it is based on usage. This is a little confusing.

I would like to see a reduction in pricing so that they can be more competitive.

Object re-use should be improved in order to get better performance and reduce the cost.

We have experienced performance issues on the website.

The interface on the homepage can be improved.

When we are uploading items into storage, we only get information from a high level. This makes it difficult to find and delete specific files.

They could provide multiple tools to provide you with cost calculations, giving you a better picture or providing you with better details of the cost calculations over the years.

We've seen some performance issues with Azure Table storage. It's quite slow. The performance surrounding it should be improved to speed things up a bit.

Moving data from cold storage to the hot storage, or, to put it another way, moving data back and forth between regular storage and archival storage is difficult. There's no easy way to do it. In the past, we've been required to download the data and then upload it to cold storage. It's an annoying process. If the solution could fix this it would be much better.

The stability of the product is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.