Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

We have a hybrid Microsoft Azure File Storage deployment. One of the models is running onto the cloud where all the images and KYC data is uploaded onto the cloud platform, and that is stored onto the file storage.

We have developed our own payment solutions on a mobile platform, where we have two modules for our solutions. In the first model, we host it as an entire SaaS solution where clients will bring their merchants and will use our solutions. The second model is where we sell this solution to the clients, offshore, and the client will host it on their premises or onto the cloud. My clients are Indian banks and overseas banks

Another model of the solution we sell is for offshore clients, the client will host it on their infrastructure or onto the cloud. My clients are Indian banks and overseas banks. Many banks are connected and are using our solutions over the cloud. For example, if a customer with the corporation wants to onboard their own merchant to use these solutions, they have to onboard the merchants and confirm the KYC.

We have developed a digital platform where sales and the other staff can go to the merchants, and upload their KYC data, such as identity verification and address verification. All this data will go out through the mobile phones by clicking the pictures. All of the images will be uploaded via the API calls at the backend application, which is Microsoft Azure File Storage, and all those images get stored, encrypted onto the file storage.

We have not explored the desktop performance analysis of the file storage, but the user interface, API, and the response that we receive over the file storage are very good. We have a lot of customers that connect to the client-side, click the images, and upload them. The beauty of the solution is that we can mount the file storage into a critical server as well as an external drive. The speed that we receive with the images is pretty good.

In our use cases, we see the weakness in mobile internet connectivity.

When the user clicks the pictures of the identification and verification, addresses, those images have different sizes. If you click via the HD camera, it takes four to six Mbps. The issue is not with the Microsoft Azure File Storage, but the issue is at the front end when it is uploaded from the mobile network. This is the main pain area for us, and we are looking for a way to compress the images to the best possible minimum size, to allow them to be uploaded without any issues, without any dependencies on the external network.

I have been using Microsoft Azure File Storage for approximately two years.

We have not seen any problems with the stability of the solution.

Microsoft Azure File Storage is scalable. Using the cloud, the entire model is scalable.

By using the load balancer, we have our in-built APIs for all the applications, which are Microsoft Azure File Storage, which is very scalable. We are using Microsoft Azure File Storage to receive and to have access at very fast speeds globally. The backend, modules, and the application on virtual machines, which is again scalable. We find it's very easy to host it on the cloud, because when it's already an on-premise server, they have many constraints, such as time, hardware, availability, and labor force. The solution is very easy to scale, you can scale out or scale in on demand. It can even be automated on the cloud.

We have many customers that are using our solution which uses Microsoft Azure File Storage. For example, there are five overseas banks that are using their own solutions, the Commercial Bank of Qatar, the National Bank of Dubai, RAKBANK Dubai, and Network International Dubai. Our solution is one of the very first solutions in India where you can accept your payments on NFC-enabled mobiles using our applications. We have approximately 10 to 15 Indian banks that are using the solution. 

Our payment solution, it's a complete hybrid model. There are many models running on-premise, and many models running on the cloud, such as AWS and Azure. My payment application is not hosted in one vertical. There are many verticals to it and different product portfolios. The core payment application is on-premise, and certain verticals are hosted onto the AWS platform, but the digital merchant onboarding platform is on the Microsoft Azure File Storage.

The main difference between AWS and Microsoft Azure File Storage which we have found from our compliance perspective since we are in the highly regulated payment industry is that AWS only has the presence in the Mumbai region in India, but Azure has two presence in Chennai and in Mumbai. From the compliance point of view, we found that since our on-premise is again in Mumbai region, we cannot have disaster recovery in the Mumbai region. This is one of the cons for AWS, for which we hosted the merchant onboarding platform on Azure.

The initial installation of Microsoft Azure File Storage was straightforward. The process was not difficult for the implementation of the solution with the module, it took approximately 30 minutes.

I rate the initial installation of Microsoft Azure File Storage a four out of five.

There was a team that was doing the implementation of the Microsoft Azure File Storage. The team consisted of system administrators.

We have not seen a return on investment with Microsoft Azure File Storage because we are running a small infrastructure with this project. We have not increased to the level where we have seen a return on investment. However, we have seen a return on investment for the AWS platform.

In Microsoft Azure File Storage we only pay for what we use. We don't have to pay for what we are expecting to use or what we are locating, we only pay for what we are using. This is the advantage of the cloud.

One of the major benefits for AWS is that they have a very large customer representative base where clients can be picked from, they offer large discounts and credit. We were not able to receive the same kind of offers from Microsoft Azure File Storage. We tried to approach Azure while hiring for our disaster recovery discussion, but we didn't receive anything from Azure.

If we use a Microsoft Windows computer we will have to pay additional fees for the license for Microsoft Windows.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure File Storage a five out of five.

We are focused on the Indian market and we have a lot of SMEs and enterprise customers. The most difficult aspect of capturing more customers is for Microsoft Azure File Storage to offer higher discounts and credits. They do not provide enough discounts.

I rate Microsoft Azure File Storage an eight out of ten. 

The product is a reliable cloud solution. Its performance and ease of use are good. 

The tool needs to be more intuitive. 

Also, the product name keeps changing. It can be confusing when product names change frequently, especially with Microsoft. Sometimes, if you refer to a product by a certain name last year, it might have a different name six months later.

I have been using the product for 2 to 3 years. 

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

I didn't face any issues with the solution's scalability. My company has 1000 users who use it extensively. 

The tool's support is not bad if you have a premium contract. 

Microsoft Azure File Storage's deployment is not complex. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. If you're considering using it, I'd say it's a reliable product. However, in terms of costs, it's important to plan to avoid unexpected expenses. Each solution has its strengths and weaknesses. Depending on your specific needs, you may find one solution better suited than another. That's why most larger companies don't stick to just one solution. 

We use the solution to store server data.

Cloud file storage is easy to operate across different environments. It helps us with geo-redundancy.

The product must provide better security functions.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. Around 50 to 100 people use the solution in our organization.

We contacted support for a few cases. The response time and quality of support were good.

The initial setup is simple.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

I rate the pricing a six or seven out of ten. The pricing could be more flexible.

Both AWS and Microsoft Azure File Storage are the same. The functionalities are similar. How they integrate with different features might vary.

New features might be introduced in the future, but the solution is already good from our perspective. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have a lot of snapshots that use cold storage and translation-related queries that are used for block storage. We also have a lot of share point related documents. We require a lot of file storage as our customer is purely energy-based. This solution is helpful as they have a lot of energy-based reports, energy-based analyses and medium documents contracts.

The solution is good, and we have not had any significant setbacks. The clients are happy with the solution. In addition, the functionality is easy.

Microsoft Azure File Storage has a lot of availability and lead management. It is very helpful because we are trying to migrate from on-premises to Azure, and this solution gives us the file storage we need. I need to have the same infrastructure when we move from on-premises to Azure.

The pricing and technical support could be better.

We have been using this solution for a couple of years. It is deployed on a hybrid cloud.

I am unsure about the scalability, but it does the job. We have three storage accounts using this solution.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten. They can improve on the SLS because they keep pushing to move it from A to B or C. We have done our troubleshooting, we don't own the platform, so it's up to Azure to come to us with solutions.

The initial setup is pretty simple, and we completed it using documentation. The documentation in Azure is good because we have migration and containerization. In addition, the Azure migration hub is pretty detailed.

I rate the pricing a four out of ten. The copy cost is priced compared to on-premises, and the price is high across loan vendors.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten and recommend it to others.

We use the solution for file migration services to Azure. 

The solution manages our file storage. It is a server and different users access it when they need files. 

In general, it is a good service for file storage and maintaining your files in order. 

They can improve the ability to assign permissions to different groups or users. 

We have been using this solution for a long time. 

The solution is stable. 

It is a scalable solution. 

The setup was easy. When implementing, it is important to pay attention to the volume of data and different requirements for the synchronization of data.

I rate this product a nine out of ten. 

It's used to store our files safely, and we are able to transfer them between different devices and users without having to move them around physically.

I'm using its latest version.

Its simplicity of use is most valuable. It's easy to start working with it and understand it. It's easier to transfer files between different users. I'm able to move files from my device to my manager's device without any issues or without facing any problems in between.

It's a bit complex to set up. Other than that, there is nothing to improve.

I've been using this solution for a few years.

It's 100% stable.

It's a very scalable solution. So far, there are about 20 users. We will increase its usage if there are more inquiries and more people.

For maintenance, we have two engineers and one solutions architect.

We haven't contacted their tech support so far.

I don't believe so, but I can never be sure because I was not around.

It's a cloud solution. Its setup is a bit complex, but once you get started, you don't have any issues going forward. In terms of setup duration, I wasn't around when it was deployed. It was already deployed when I came to work here, so I'm not sure how long it took.

We most probably didn't use any third-party help.

We saved a lot when we moved to the cloud. It has saved us a lot of money, and we have seen an ROI.

I'd definitely recommend it. If you are looking for a very simple solution for your file services, I'd definitely recommend Microsoft Azure File Storage. It's a very good solution for businesses that are looking to grow.

I'd rate it a ten out of ten.

The product is primarily used for the file server. You can have the complete infrastructure including the repository and access control as well. People can use offline data if they like.

As an example, there is a company we work with that has different offices across the world - in Europe, the UK, UAE, and India - and they want around 100,000 customers as well as employees to access their file system. That file system was built on-prem, however, they have multiple challenges in terms of having delays in accessing the files. For security reasons, they are not able to manage the identity on Active Directory for all the locations. They want a complete advanced and modern authentication to be used, like multifactor cloud app security, and advanced start production, et cetera. That is not possible on-prem. Therefore, they have decided to go for Azure file sharing - a cloud-based file system. They use the three locations in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.

These three locations have a file-sharing system enabled that replicates their on-prem storage and people can access all the data over the cloud storage, which easily replicates across the locations. Whatever file(s) people are accessing frequently will be shown via an AI-based pattern so that admins can see which file(s) are being used the most. The system will make it easier to access those most-used files while keeping users and the system safe within the system.

The overall solution is great. There isn't really a specific standout feature.  

We appreciate how you can customize the service. There are multiple options. You can use the modern authentication that has developed a good IP, for example. 

You can access what you need from anywhere, anytime, from your personal device, from your office et cetera. Users have great flexibility in terms of access without sacrificing security.

The stability is good. 

The solution can scale to fit any requirement. 

The solution should support all the legacy storage systems. 

They should make it easy to migrate in one click.

In terms of storage and latency, it should be more optimized. 

The Microsoft File System should support all the regions. 

Some customers want to use SharePoint instead of File Share. SharePoint offers one terabyte of storage for an organization, and for small or medium organizations, this size is good enough to store their files. However, Microsoft should also think of very small organizations that might only have 10 or 20 users spread across the world. It would be ideal if they had some sort of file share system designed for their much smaller needs. 

I've used the solution for the last four or so years so far. 

So far, I haven't had any issues with stability. I haven't witnessed any bugs or glitches and I don't find that it crashes and freezes. It's reliable. 

The scalability has been great. There's no limit on the scale in terms of storage and in terms of infrastructure it's good enough. No matter the size of the company, it shouldn't be a problem to scale and meet its needs. 

I have not used the technical support personally, so I cannot say from personal experience, however, it is my understanding that it is merely okay.

I'd describe it as average. Unless you have a premium service from Microsoft they will respond fast, and normally it takes a lot of time and it goes to a very basic support level. That's not just for this solution. that's the basic assumption for any Microsoft support for any product. If you have subscribed for the premium services, professional services, then it will be better.  

The solution's initial setup contains a moderate amount of complexity. I can't say it's easy. I cannot say it's complex. However, if people know the solution, they likely have a good idea of the product and what to expect. It's not very hard, but, again, when you can go and set up, especially if it's a big infrastructure environment, you have to understand the storage and the network and to know the framework you are working in. 

The pricing is okay, however, it's quite a bit higher compared to AWS.

You only pay for storage. However, if you think you might need support, and you want better support options, you may need to pay for the premium Microsoft support services. 

We are a Microsoft partner. 

While I only use the cloud deployment, it can be integrated with any on-premises solution as well. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

It's been a pretty good solution so far.

I've been using Azure File Storage for a couple of months.

Azure File Storage's stability is okay, but sometimes we have trouble with the link to the Azure VPN disconnecting.

The deployment took a couple of days. 

A Microsoft partner helped me to deploy and configure the solution.

Azure File Storage gives good value for money, so I don't find it expensive.

I would rate Azure File Storage eight out of ten.