Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

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. 

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. 

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.

My company is a managed services firm. We do have a firewall internally, but we have about 70 banks and probably about 30 to 40 clients in other verticals that we are servicing. So it is not just us or our clients that we use products for. I am constantly looking at a lot of different client bases as far as different industries and needs, and a lot of different solutions and possibilities.  

A lot of what we use Azure File Storage for at our company is BLOB storage because the format is flexible in terms of pulling stuff down. Usually what we are doing is storing and retrieving IT management information. We have to be able to store and pull specific files from storage. BLOB storage is a good solution for that type of management.  

Most of our clients are using a private cloud because it is a requirement for them. As financial institutions, that is kind of where they have to go to properly secure critical data. We go public because there is no requirement on our end to do private cloud. For our financial institution clients, there are requirements from oversight boards and governing institutions that they need to have critical information stored privately because they are handling people's money.  

The main thing that is valuable about the solution is just the reason you do cloud: because it is flexible. For example, right now we are working on a project for a client and they are entirely involved with the Azure suite. They are using Intune for MDM (Mobile Device Management) and Azure AD for their authentication. That is all nice and well and good, but then they need a server. So what we are going to do is to push data into Azure from the data center and part of it to the house server. The thing with that is it is a flexible solution and it is easy to ramp up or down depending on their compute needs.  

I think the place where the product really needs the most attention is in the Intune and the MDM products. They are building it out pretty quickly in updates, yet at the same time that is probably the place where I have seen the most reason to simplifying for ease-of-use. Right now you kind of have to spend some time to wrap your head around the product instead of it being something that is easier to use and easier to onboard into production. In a way, that is just part of the industry standard right now. Any MDM product you choose is going to be a little difficult that way, and it is going to require some build-out that is maybe more than you had expected or cared to dive into.  

If they improved Intune to where it was more deployable out-of-the-box, that would be great. We just have to wait and see if they can do it.  

We have been using the Azure File Storage solution for a few years now at the company I am with. I started utilizing that solution for storage initially with clients about three or four years ago. I actually brought the company I am working for now onto the Azure platform before I started working at the company and that led them to using the Azure File Storage solution.  

The stability of the product is fine. It is stable. It is just something you have to pay attention to in the management of how you want it to perform. In that way, it is just like everything else.  

It is scalable. But it is really the same deal for just about any product of this type. Everything is stable and everything is scalable to the extent of time that you are willing to invest in it to make it that way. Some products are not worth the time.  

The number of users and how they are using the product depends on the client. In our organization, everyone has to use the product, otherwise, they can not work. So that is 100% of them because we require it. It will not be the same way in every organization.  

I have had some experience with the technical support for Azure. Your experience with the support team will depend on the situation. Microsoft splits out their support infrastructure based on two different areas of the planet. So if you are talking about dealing with the Philippines call center, it is much more in line with expectations going on in the US in terms of speed and efficiency and meeting the needs of the client. Whereas if you are talking about their outsourced support infrastructure in India, there are some procedures you have to deal with that makes the support process a little harder if you are not aware of them. Neither of the support teams are bad, they are just different. Getting the support you want is just a matter of being aware of who and what you are dealing with in both situations.  

The other thing I would say is that we are a provider. We sell the product and we are a Microsoft silver partner. Because of that, we get to contact a different support infrastructure than somebody who does not have that type of relationship with Microsoft. I have experience with it from both sides. There was a time when I was running a nonprofit and I had to call into support and I did not have a provider who had silver partner status. It was a lot harder to get support then because I would have to call in and I just got the tier-one guys all the time. Now, as a silver partner, I can call in and get the right person on the phone the first time without waiting or trying to get past the tier-one guys. So, support is fine depending on your relationship with the company and the context of the issue which may include your location or the size of the organization.  

The initial setup was complex. There is a lot to do to build it out. There are a lot of nuances to how the MDM works and that makes Intune a little bit harder to work with. Unless you have done it a few times and paved the pain points of some of the things that you have to do in configuring it, it is going to be hard.  

At the same time, it is hard to say how long a deployment takes. That is because you can roll out Intune in a matter of a few minutes, but building it out to function the way you want it to is the part that impacts the speed in which you implement it.  

We did not use an integrator or reseller or consultant for the deployment because that is what we do. We are those things and we deal with the problems that you face in deployments every day.  

We try to push as many clients as we can toward Azure because most of our clients are Office 365 clients as it stands already, so they already have Azure integrated. They have the authentication and because of that, it allows us to push Azure a little easier because it is already native to the products they are using and familiar to their users. 

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this solution as a six. Currently, you just have to spend too much time wrapping your head around what the product does and how it does it. Then the build-out takes a lot of effort. If it took less effort in that way — especially from my perspective as a reseller and consultant where implementation is so important — then I could rate it higher. The economy of scale plays in, but it is just hard to invest into that build-out on the front end.  

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.

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 our live cloud servers, such as our application servers. We also use the solution for backups and file security.

My client had zero data loss while using the solution for backups and file security.

It would be good if they added some features that make the solution easier to access for everyone.

I've worked with the solution for the last one or two years.

I rate Microsoft Azure File Storage's stability an eight or nine out of ten.

I rate Microsoft Azure File Storage's scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The solution is completely supported. They provide solutions to our problems.

Positive

The setup process for the solution is simple.

The solution is suitable for medium and enterprise-sized businesses from a commercial standpoint. I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten because it is reasonably priced.

The solution is very competitive with AWS and Google's cloud solutions. They have common features, but I'm comparing them on a commercial basis.

I rate Microsoft Azure File Storage a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our clients to access their files from different locations.

The best part is the accessibility to all the files.

The upload speed has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for two years.

Microsoft Azure File Storage is stable.

Microsoft Azure File Storage is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. Two of us did the pilot testing before the deployment.

Microsoft Azure File Storage is expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The entire organization of around 800 people uses Microsoft Azure File Storage.

I recommend Microsoft Azure File Storage to others.