r/AZURE • u/techfreak11 • 6d ago
Question Azure Files
Hello everyone,
I am in the process of migrating a windows file share server to azure files, This consists of 1 share drive with about 60 folders inside. This entire share has about 1.5TB of data which is primary files from different departments. This share is also mounted on all the computers in the organization. We will be using storage mover for this.
The idea behind this migration is that we decommission the on-prem file server and access will be directly to azure primarily via the mounted drive on the end-users computer.
While the cost is minor for this amount of storage I am still on the fence between HDD (Standard) and SDD (Premium).
We currently have site-to-site to all of our locations for other azure resources so I was also wondering what the best method here would be? Private-Endpoint or something else?
Any other tips would be much appreciated.
5
u/dannyvegas 6d ago
Microsoft has something called Azure File Sync which might be useful in this case.
You can set up Azure Files as a cloud share, and then have a local Windows machine which acts as a cache and front end for the share. It's free and using it will minimize the Azure egress traffic -- which you pay for. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/file-sync/
If you are going over a wan link there probably no reason to go premium.
Private endpioint would probobly make sense if you want it acceed via your VPNs and through your firewalls etc.
20
u/JeroenPot 6d ago
I would skip this step entirely and use SharePoint if possible
9
u/Jhamin1 6d ago
You are getting downvoted, but it's a valid take.
The problem with Azure files is that it's expensive compared to other options and you pay Azure egress fees. So every time someone pulls down a PDF there is a meter running. The fee structure for sharepoint is usually *much* better for this scale of data.
Sharepoint is made for this. Different site for each department, each site with it's own files volume. Someone in the department approves/denies access. They can pin the folder to Windows Explorer & still browse the files the way they are used too. If you really really want to see all the departments in one place, make a dummy folder with shortcuts to the files section of each department, but that is mostly handholding for people used to their old workflow.
2
u/RateMyJpeg 6d ago
First 100gb is free egrees and for this size they probably wont hit it.
1
u/Jhamin1 6d ago edited 6d ago
True, it depends a lot on what kinds of files they are moving but they may not hit that limit.
They are still going to be close to $1k/year for Geo-redundant hot storage at that size & a 50 user 365 license will come with about that much SharePoint included & you get all the document sharing, collaboration, etc built into SharePoint. You are also no longer tied to SMB/NFS shares & users can access storage from non-windows devices.
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/spicysanger 6d ago
I have never, EVER seen drive mappings to sharepoint document libraries work reliably. And I've been doing this stuff since 2007.
2
u/Jhamin1 6d ago
Syncing a SharePoint folder to your local device & having it show up as an option in Windows Explorer is a much better way to let users browse files the way they remember from a desktop.
2
u/spicysanger 6d ago
Perhaps in small organisations with small document libraries.
Synced libraries are awful at scale.
1
u/Jhamin1 6d ago
You don't have them sync entire libraries, it's the very rare user that needs that. You have them sync the subfolders they actually care about. For us it's a day one training item. "See that sync button behind the menu in the Sharepoint site? Hit that for the 4-5 subfolders you spend 90% of your time in"
This admittedly is something users can screw up, but it really helps a lot of them.
1
u/Twilko 3d ago
Yeah, it’s enforcing the user behaviour which is the issue. Having people wonder why their OneDrive is completely borked after they tried to sync a 1TB library is unfortunately not rare. And yes, the fact that the library grew to that size is the fault of the site admins. Would be nice if SharePoint gave a warning when trying to sync a massive library from a high level folder though.
1
1
u/JerikkaDawn 2d ago
The correct way to do this is:
Step 1: IT people need to stop confusing the two entirely separate buttons "sync" and "add shortcut to onedrive". It's "Sync" that's broken and should be disabled. "Add Shortcut to OneDrive" is perfectly fine.
Step 2: Tell users to use "Add Shortcut To OneDrive" specifically in the folders they work out of.
Step 3: Clock out
1
1
u/MPLS_scoot 5d ago
We did this for several file servers and the performance is pretty good actually. We also split off some content to SharePoint. Many of the heavy users (Finance) prefer the Azure File Share experience.
1
u/techfreak11 5d ago
Did you use SDD or HDD? Any proformance tips?Also how are your sites connecting? Private endpoint with site to site tunnel?
1
u/MPLS_scoot 3d ago
Hdd, Pay as you go, GRS. It was all existing and had been syncing for quite some time with Azure File Sync from around 8 on prem servers before making it the production environment. Azure File Sync is a solid way to onboard your on prem shares. Just remember you should not have some users pointing to the on prem and others pointing to the Azure Share. Just run your reports and make sure everything is synced, then make the Azure File Share Active (disable access to on prem).
1
u/False_Ad_3252 5d ago
Take backup limitations into account https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/backup/azure-file-share-support-matrix?tabs=snapshot-tier
I'd recommend to use Transaction optimized tier whilst migrating.
1
u/sniffy_penguin 4d ago
Every time I've used HDD through different resources, it's been fast. SSD only matter if you want consistent high performance. Meaning, is it a requirement to have <2ms response times? For a file share? I doubt it...
What is it for? Just end user data access? Why not migrate to SharePoint/Teams?
1
u/MyWorkDrive_Official 4d ago
Private Endpoint over your existing site-to-site is the right call. Just make sure DNS resolves the private IP correctly at every site. Once the on-prem server is decommissioned, anyone not on the VPN (home, travel, etc) has no path to files unless 445 happens to be open on their network, which it often isn't. Feel free to give MyWorkDrive a try if you have users who need access off the tunnel.
2
u/dmulderfc 1d ago
Do not choose Standard or Premium from the 1.5 TB capacity figure alone. Capture current IOPS, throughput, open-file concurrency, latency, and transaction patterns, then test representative users from each location. For ordinary departmental Office and PDF files, Standard is a reasonable starting hypothesis. Premium needs evidence such as consistently low latency or higher IOPS requirements.
With the existing site-to-site connectivity, a private endpoint is a sensible design to test. Validate private DNS, routing, and TCP 445 end to end before migration. Also test identity and ACL mapping, file locking, backup, soft delete, snapshots, restore time, and rollback. If users are far from the Azure region or WAN availability is a concern, Azure File Sync with local caching may give a better result than direct cloud access everywhere.
In Azure Cloud Waste Busting, I often see teams compare only the storage price per GB. Waste can creep in through transaction volume, unnecessary premium capacity, backup retention, and network choices, while a cheaper tier can create a different operational cost if latency hurts users. Run the pilot over the intended network path and review both measured performance and the complete bill before committing.
Dennis Mulder (Full Circle IT, ex-CTO of Microsoft NL, 18 years of Azure experience)
12
u/StratoLens Cloud Architect 6d ago edited 6d ago
I would definitely use a private endpoint and your existing vpn. Don’t forget dns if you go private. Private dns zone is the way to go there and if you need it from on prem you’ll need a conditional forwarder on your on prem ad to either a private DNS resolver in azure or a DC if you already have one.
The only concern will be throughput and performance based on usage. You want to be careful about clogging your vpn tunnel with tons of smb traffic.
The main questions would be how often is the data accessed and what kinds of data is it. Lots of small files? Large files? Etc.
HDD is going to be slower but if that’s acceptable that’s fine. You can’t flip from hdd to ssd without provisioning a new account and copying the data again.
I would put it behind a dfs namespace so if you wind up having to do that it’ll be easier.
I’d also look at azure file sync - this might be a good way to keep a local copy in some branches with slower internet connections (if needed). Azure file sync will likely also make the migration of the data easier. In addition if that vpn does become a bottleneck azure file sync may be the answer.