Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

The solution is easy to use.

They should make the solution more user-friendly.

We have been using the solution for almost three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. There are around 100 solution users in our company.

The solution is easy to set up. It requires three to four executives to deploy and takes 15-20 minutes to complete.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a nine.

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.

We are using the VP storage version.

Our primary use case is for roaming profiles flowing on the frictional desktop.

In terms of features that I've found most valuable, I would say none.

We have performance issues with Microsoft Azure File Storage. We have a standard version and we have also a premium version. I would like to upgrade to premium but that is not possible on the fly. So you really need to do a migration.

I was investigating when do I get to the boundaries of the premium storage. Because now we have a couple of users using it, but I'm sure that once we got to premium, there will come a time that we will again have performance issues.

That's why I was looking into comparisons with the NetApp store. It seems that it has a higher performance for the roaming profile.

I feel that we cannot just upgrade but we should really do an immigration with all the difficulties.

There are limits to the usage capacity-wise, and it is not easy to measure because they just use some other figures. You really need to understand what you are seeing if you do performance monitoring.

I do not think that NetApp is better in that way, to be honest.

I have been using Microsoft Azure File Storage for half a year.

Microsoft Azure File Storage is not that scalable. Once you reach the boundaries, you need to migrate to another solution.

We do plan to increase usage, though. We now we have these roaming profiles that are for the frictional desktop and we have currently around 120 users on the platform. That will grow. But we cannot grow further with the solution. So we need to migrate to the premium solution, then we can grow a bit. I don't feel that it is coping with 3000 users.

That's why we're looking for another solution.

I'm currently dealing with the support. It takes a long time to see if that performance issue is really because of the file storage. It takes at least a week before they act.

There is certainly room for improvement here.

The initial setup is fairly easy.

Overall, I think Microsoft Azure File Storage is workable, but you really need to make a design to make it redundant. There is a possibility to connect several discs, several file storage accounts. Then you can make it scalable yourself. I'm fully comfortable with that solution. We worked it out that we direct users to different storage accounts. But that all needs to be done before you start. Before you start, you really need to consider your design and make it scalable yourself. That's my recommendation.

I think that they should implement on the background so that you can upgrade and migrate on the fly. 

It doesn't feel hardware-wise that I'm working in a cloud, and it doesn't really feel like cloud. It feels like I have a dedicated device disc I am working on and that doesn't provide me the cloud experience. Because I'm working on the dedicated device I expect that I can read the usual suspects as normal, the IOPS, et cetera, and those figures are not provided standardly.

I am sure that we will find a solution. It integrates very well and is easy to implement.

But like I said, I expect more of the cloud experience.

So taking all that together, on a scale of one to ten I would give Microsoft Azure File Storage a six.