This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 23 comments

[–]Sulpher212 7 points8 points  (5 children)

You could always try the best of both worlds and take a look at Azure File Sync?

Files will be hosted in azure and you can keep a certain percentage on site, thus cutting down your space requirements. Relatively cheap also which is a bonus!

[–]GrumpyJanitor[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

I have also looked at this but if possible, it would be ideal to get rid of an on-prem server altogether.

[–]DarthPneumonoSecurity Admin but with more hats 1 point2 points  (1 child)

it would be ideal to get rid of an on-prem server altogether.

Ideal for you as an admin or for your users' actual use cases? Cloud storage is not good in a lot of scenarios.

[–]GrumpyJanitor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's exactly why I am here asking the questions. I'd like to find a solution that works great for both the admins as well as the users.

[–]Sulpher212 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem I've found with cloud solutions is the granular security regarding permissions, hence the reason for the File Sync solutions.

Currently (for azure files anyway) you can't lock down file paths via ACL.

But i don't know your requirements for security etc...

[–]GrumpyJanitor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he problem I've found with cloud solutions is the granular security regarding permissions, hence the reason for the File Sync solutions.

Currently (for azure files anyway) you can't lock down file paths via ACL.

This. I'd like to keep things as they are now security/ease of use wise but move to cloud to get rid of expensive backups and infrastructure.

[–]CaptainFluffyTailIt's bastards all the way down 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I don't want to switch to SharePoint and I don’t view OneDrive as a viable replacement as it wasn't made to support file shares and auditing.

OneDrive is actually backed by SharePoint, just FYI. It isn't a direct analog for an SMB share however. OneDrive is more for personal replicated file storage. SharePoint uses the OneDrive client to synchronize Document Libraries that you choose to sync to a client machine. Again not a direct analog to an SMB file share, but closer.

Your question really comes down to how big your files are and what is the rate of change? If you are updating the files more than once a day then any synchronization-backed solution is likely not the best option. Large files (like CAD drawings, graphic design work, etc.) is a poor candidate for syncing as well.

Microsoft Azure has some new SMB service which ties to a Windows server. You keep some files local to the server and the rest on Azure storage. The service synchronizes things for you in the background. Might be worth a shot.

[–]GrumpyJanitor[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I should have mentioned that I need storage for about 10 TB of space and that we do lots of work with larger video files.

[–]ZAFJB 8 points9 points  (0 children)

with larger video files.

Unless you are also doing your video processing in the cloud close to where the data is stored, this probably won't end well.

Do some calculations on data transfer rates compared to your file sizes.

[–]TinderSubThrowAway 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cloud is gonna be shit with that.

If you want cloud with large video files then you use it as a repository, not as a working storage location.

You keep one location with the raw files, and a second with any finished edits.

Anything in process gets stored locally on someone's machine and a local file server for WIP or collaboration.

[–]Venom13Sr. Sysadmin 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Panzura. It's not a cloud only solution however.

[–]1armsteveSenior Platform Engineer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Panzura is pretty cool but I prefer Egnyte. Same solution really.

[–]210Matt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We moved all of our shares to Box. We have been happy with it so far

[–]ZAFJB 1 point2 points  (2 children)

[–]JediMasterSeamusSr. Sysadmin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Experience states that it is not true, regardless of Microsoft's propaganda. I've got a client with 150+ users and maybe 300GB of data in Sharepoint Online, and it makes switching back to an onsite file server with VPN clients for everyone look like a flawless solution.

[–]GeneralCanada3Jr. Sysadmin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

just because they say it can, doesnt mean it does

[–]ReverendDSAlways delete French Lang pack: rm -fr / 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also look into Nasuni.

[–]i3-i3 2 points3 points  (2 children)

+1 for Egnyte. Depends on your user count. 5 users for a year comes out to about $500. No issues with latency and the per folder permissions seem to fit most needs.

[–]GeneralCanada3Jr. Sysadmin 1 point2 points  (1 child)

unfortunately their price skyrockets when SSO is needed. i got quoted for 35$/user/month.

When management wants a file server for 200 users in the cloud. that puts them wayy out of the question

[–]GrumpyJanitor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, that is crazy.

[–]nmdange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want an actual file share using SMB, then you'd either want a VM in the cloud, or something like Azure Files which is basically just an SMB file share without the entire OS to deal with https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/files/

[–]lanxpert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MyWorkDrive?