Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

Azure files offers several architectural scenarios so you can check and implement different use cases depending on your needs. In brief you can use the Azure Files with a serverless approach or to integrate it with your on premise file servers through Azure File Sync.

We have IT colleagues spread all over the world, so we are trying to define governance rules. We need to manage things at the infrastructure level, and so the Azure File could be a technology to replace or to integrate with our file servers on-premise solution.

We are testing and looking at the pros and cons, and we will decide based on features and the cost that will be present to the infrastructure manager. I think we will start to use Azure Files technology in production in the next year.

Azure Files does not require management of hardware or operating systems.

What we have found good for our company is the part related to the Azure File Sync that could be useful in a disaster recovery environment. If we have to restore all the shared data on-premise, it takes a lot of hours or days. We installed the Azure File Sync on a test on-premise server, and it was quick to synchronize back from Azure to the on-premise server. This is a really nice feature.

To get the best features on tiering, performance and security we must use W2016 and W10 in fact for example Azure File Sync does not support Data Deduplication and cloud tiering on Windows Server 2012 R2.

All data are encrypted in transit and at rest on Azure Files, Defender for Azure Storage is also available at additional cost.

Azure File offers Local and Geo-redundancy, your data can be stored in multiple Azure data centers improving availability and data proximity.

Azure backup is a fully managed service so you don't need to manage an on-premise solution, it is easy to use even though we expected better performance on the restore part, using standard storage we spend from 89 to 96 minutes to restore 341GB.

Keep attention and do not share the storage account key since it can be a security issue. With the storage account key, you can do everything you want on the storage account and on the file shares. It can be useful because this is the only way to work at home with an unmanaged PC from my company, but at the same time, if you share this key to external users, it could be a security issue.

It's a bit tricky to manage the permissions, because you have to set RBAC rights then mount the Azure File Share on your PC/server and then start to manage NTFS permissions locally.

The ability to check the open files would be a nice additional feature. On-premise you can check which files are open. On Azure, I haven't found this part.

Management and Troubleshooting often need Powershell commands.

We have been testing the solution since June 2021, but not in a real production environment. We are only testing macros, permissions, accessibility, backup and so on.

Good

I'm from Italy, but I belong to a server team hosted mainly in France and Germany. We need to manage things at the infrastructure level, and Azure File could be a technology to replace or to integrate with our on-premise solution.

The service can scale to fit almost any need, Azure Files offers four different tiers of storage allowing us to tailor our shares to the performance but obviously the cost will increase.

We have an enterprise agreement with microsoft so I tried to open a couple of requests directly at Microsoft, asking more information about the cost. Their reply was, "We don't have precise information for you, use the Azure Calculator; just start to use the service then check after some time".

Implement the service is quite easy, managing permissions can be tricky when starting from zero on this topic.

For one terabyte of data, we are spending about 150 Euro every month; but we are using the solution at a basic level with standard storage (HDDs and not SDDs).

It has been difficult to understand the real cost besides the solution, In my oppinion costs are not fully transparent.

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.

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. 

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.

This solution is mainly used for banking processes. 

The solution is easy to use, it's very user-friendly and intuitive. 

Licensing costs are expensive and I'd like to see the price come down.

We've been using this solution for four years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. 

The scalability is good. 

We've used the technical support and it's good. 

Positive

The deployment of this solution is not carried out by my team but I believe the implementation required five people. 

Licensing costs are quite expensive, although I believe the more users you have, the less expensive it becomes. 

This is becoming a very widely used platform throughout the world. I think the sooner people get on to it, the better it will be for their organization. I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We use the solution in our organization for its archival functionality. We are essentially archiving data with Microsoft Azure File Storage. Even though we have the applications and the storage, we are replicating our data into different data storages.

Feature-wise, it is an easily accessible solution since Microsoft is integrating everything into its products nowadays.

The solution is expensive. Considering the enterprise licensing required for the solution, the cost of the solution is an area where the product needs improvement.

I have been working on Microsoft Azure File Storage for around five to ten years. Presently, I am working on the latest version of the solution. I am an end user of the solution. I also work as an integrator for the solution.

We don't face any stability issues with the solution in our organization. I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a very scalable solution. I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. Around ten to fifteen of our customers are using the solution.

In my experience with the solution's technical support team, I would say it was okay since I faced no difficulties. I rate the solution's technical support team an eight out of ten.

Positive

We use Commvault and Veeam in our organization. The reason to use Microsoft Azure File Storage is that it is a cloud solution. Though the other ones are also cloud solutions, Microsoft offers better pricing compared to them.

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

Around two weeks were needed for the solution's deployment process. Also, the deployment process is something which one can do by themselves.

Only one technical person is required to deploy and maintain the solution.

We need a consultant with knowledge of integration and EDI-related processes to implement the solution.

I am unsure if I have seen an ROI using the solution since I don't look into the commercial part.

One needs to pay according to the storage they plan to use in the solution. The payments are to be made yearly. It is usually monthly, but we opted for yearly subscriptions in our company. In general, all cloud solutions are expensive. Ultimately the solution of the cost depends upon how one plans to use it, which includes features like data usage backup and other such data-related stuff. So the cost can differ from customer to customer.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it, especially if they require a cheap cloud solution. We haven't seen any issues with the solution in our organization since it works fine. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.