Microsoft Azure File Storage Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution to migrate several products to the cloud. We use several Microsoft products simultaneously. 

I like the diverse facilities offered by the solution. If a facility tool upgrades, it also upgrades in the cloud. This is very dynamic. Is it very easy to manage and we haven't had any problems with file system limitations or performances. The backup to the firewall has been working well. I like the speed of the program.

So far we haven't had any difficulties with migrations. Sometimes I call support to help me with the migration of the servers. So far it has been all very easy.

We haven't had any issues with the stability of the solution.

We haven't faced any issues in terms of scalability so far.

Microsoft has a good support systems and we have good relationship so far. We have our own team of engineers to help us whenever we have an issue, but whenever we contact Microsoft for support, they are there to give us the help we need.

I have a small contract with Amazon, but I don't use that very often because it doesn't offer that much storage.

The setup was easy and straightforward and the deployment didn't take too long. It is a static plan, so we have to see it first and then we organize. We did have some help from a consultant when we did the deployment. 

Implementations with other products are easy. In the past we had to use a multi-cloud, but we had a preference for one unique tool for each subject that we wanted to manage. So now we are using one cloud only. We had a very new team and we were building everything from scratch.

I will rate this solution an eight out of ten. We haven't been using it very long, but we don't have any complaints. The interface is easy to work on, but sometimes it takes very long to refresh the information. Perhaps that can be improved. It is not a big problem but it would be nice if you could get what you need straight away. So an improvement in the design and speed of things would be great. 

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.

We are partners with Microsoft and I'm an executive of the company.  

The most valuable feature is the integration with the entire Azure platform, very bluntly and very simply how it's embedded, how you can use it. That's the sort of factor that sets the solution apart. 

I'd like to see integration with other platforms as part of the solution. If you have a company to do cloud strategy that could have an impact.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The solution is scalable. It's one of the strengths of the product. 

We have support staff within the company. I have never ever had the need to call anybody from Microsoft support. If we do call support on other matters, then our directors have links to Microsoft, but I've never had the need for myself. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment time depends on the size of the project but it's easy and simple.  

I would certainly recommend this product, especially if you are working with the Microsoft and Azure ecosystem, because then it's really easy to be used and you get all the benefits and I can't think of any reason not to like it. Once you're on the platform, it should be that it's more a question of how strong the solution is. 
 
I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Our use case depends on data structure types and needs of the customer. If I know that a customer has different types of structure, like semi-structured, unstructured, and structured data, then I have to use Azure Data Lake storage. If it's structured, I can directly use Azure SQL or Azure Synapse Analytics to process my data. 

The most valuable feature is that it supports many file formats like XML, CSV, XBRL, and media types. 

I think the pricing of the product can be reduced. 

I have been using the solution for one and a half years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Enterprises, medium and small businesses can use this solution. The size of the company doesn't matter. It's suitable for any sized company. 

The initial setup is simple. I would rate the setup a five out of ten. Consultants are required for the deployment of the solution. 

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten. 

My advice would be to get information about the products and features Microsoft provides. I would rate the solution an eight 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.

Our primary use case for the solution is storing files and calling in our code. Additionally, we use it to push logs from different sources, and whenever we have some transactions or logs related to them, we push them to a storage block and archive it for HR purposes.

All the features are good, and we have four types of storage, including Block Storage.

The way retention policies are applied could be more optimized. Additionally, the pricing should be more competitive with other CHPs, and stability can be improved.

We have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 300 to 500 people are utilizing this solution in our organization. We intend to increase the usage of this solution.

We previously used three other solutions.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes approximately twenty minutes. Approximately two technical staff are required for deployment.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but improvements could be made to its stability and the way retention policies are applied could be more optimized.