Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

I primarily use the solution for my backup files. It's for copies. I use it as a backup that connects with the cloud and one account of Microsoft.

The solution is very secure.

It's very fast and connects quickly between my files and the cloud. 

It was easy to set up. 

The solution is stable. 

I find the product to be scalable. 

Next year, I will likely change my equipment to update everything. That would be better. 

It's not very intuitive. I'd like the screen to be more user-friendly. The usability is not good. 

I've been using the solution for three years. 

It's a stable product. I haven't dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

The solution scales well. It's not a problem.

We have around 50 people using the solution. 

Technical support has been good. It's very fast. I've been happy with it. 

The setup itself is straightforward. It's not difficult to implement. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. I'd have to look at the sales documentation to refresh my memory. 

We're a Microsoft reseller. 

I am not sure if I am using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

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 primary use case for us is storing attachments and images in our projects. It allows us to access the application and retrieve the files whenever needed, without the need for additional servers. We use the endpoint to access the application and view the images in any reports.

The most valuable aspect of Azure File Storage is that all the features are available in one place.

Otherwise, we would have to rely on other uncertain solutions. But with Azure File Storage, everything is consolidated, making it easy to configure and use.

If it is not for an application, then SharePoint or Office 365 could actually solve our problem for file storage and internal communications. But if you want to access files within an application, using Azure would be preferable.

However, the solution could use some additional tools for sharing files. It would be great to have everything in one place for a more streamlined experience.

Another area of improvement is pricing. Maybe Microsoft can make it more economical because it is a costly affair. So if they can optimize their pricing for broader customer use, including small and medium-sized companies.

I have been using Azure File Storage for about two years.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability of the solution an eight out of ten. It is pretty scalable. Especially on the cloud version, the biggest advantage of the solution is its scalability. 

Two to three people are required for the maintenance. 

I didn't benefit much from Microsoft tech support. It's because they have specific departments. So when you raise a ticket, it takes time for them to assign it to the right team. Then someone picks it up and might realize it's not their area, so they transfer it to person XYZ. Then I have to explain the issue again. This process goes on, and the issue keeps transferring from one department to another. That's why; nowadays, we prefer handling things internally rather than reaching out to the support team.

Neutral

We are only using Microsoft. We are highly dependent on Microsoft for all our file storage needs, including SharePoint, Teams, and other storage solutions.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is a high price, and ten is a low price.

The solution is only for enterprise-level businesses. 

For my deployments, I am utilizing both Azure File Storage and Block Storage. Additionally, I am using servers, specifically SQL Server and application servers. The application server is also a part of my setup.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use Azure File storage to both store and analyze our data. We also provide our customers with data storage and analysis facilities using this solution.

Implementing Microsoft Azure has meant that we are using the same solution as our customers who use Azure Public Cloud. This allows us to integrate our application, as well as provide the solution to them.

Through this solution, we are also able to visually represent data for our customers, and give them clear metrics using their data.

It would be helpful if we could remove data that we don't frequently access to reduce the cost of the storage.

We have been using this solution for the last two and a half years.

We have found it to be stable during the time we have used it.

It is a scalable solution.

The support team is responsive because we are one of their premium customers. They will generally respond to our requests for support within five to ten minutes, but we pay for this level of service.

Neutral

The public cloud service makes the initial setup easy and straightforward.

I would recommend that new users begin with an on-premises, private cloud setup, as mistakes on the public cloud are costly to rectify. Once they are familiar with the solution, they can then move to public cloud hosting. I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

The solution is user-friendly and integrates easily with web apps. 

Microsoft Azure File Storage should improve its pricing. 

Microsoft Azure File Storage is stable. 

The tool is scalable, and my company has more than 200 users. 

Microsoft Azure File Storage's deployment is straightforward and takes only five minutes to complete. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

We have Microsoft Azure File Storage's enterprise license. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. The solution is easy to use. However, you need to be careful with the tool's pricing. 

We use Microsoft Azure File Storage to extract and store the data in Azure database.

The product is user-friendly. Its most valuable features are speed and security.

The product’s pricing could be better. Additionally, they should increase time and storage capacity for free accounts used by students.

We have been using Microsoft Azure File Storage since last year. At present, we are using the latest version.

The product is stable.

It is a scalable platform.

The product’s initial setup process has medium complexity. We review the code and share the details with the DBA team. Further, they execute the deployment. It takes five minutes to complete.

The product's pricing need improvement. 

I recommend Microsoft Azure File Storage to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

As a Microsoft Azure File Storage integrator, I present the solution and its services to our company's customers.

What I like about Microsoft Azure File Storage is its convenience for customers, cost-effectiveness, and high availability. It's easy for customers to manage which makes it a practical choice.

There is room for improvement in helping customers understand and integrate Azure File Storage into their operations. Additionally, adding more AI capabilities and innovation could make it even better for customers in the future.

I have been using the solution for a year.

I would give it an eight out of ten for stability.

I would rate the scalability of Azure File Storage an eight out of ten. It's quite scalable. We have not had issues with it. It is suitable for enterprise businesses.

The technical support is good. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

While I have experience working with Oracle's products, Microsoft's products outperform them. Microsoft offers cloud services, and customers prefer Microsoft for their overall service requirements, even though there may not be a significant difference in the cloud itself.

The initial setup is fairly simple. If a customer needs help with the integration, we will re-do the whole process with them.

In terms of pricing, I've noticed that Oracle Cloud has lower rates than Microsoft Azure File Storage, especially regarding data transfer costs. Oracle doesn't charge for data transfer like Azure. So, price-wise, I find Oracle Cloud more affordable.

Different cloud providers offer similar services but the choice should align with the customer's overall requirements. For example, if a customer deploys in Oracle Cloud, we use Oracle File Storage. If they opt for Azure, then Azure File Storage is used. The key is to match the storage solution to the chosen cloud environment. Additionally, you can use a multi-cloud approach to deploy workloads in various environments. Tools like Cloudify, Morpheus, or Aviatrix help manage these multiple cloud platforms for the organization. Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure File Storage a seven out of ten.