How can we improve Azure Storage?

← Storage

Offer Premium Storage option for Azure File Service

Offer Premium Storage for high I/O databases and applications when provisioning File Services

158 votes
Vote

We're glad you're here

Please sign in to leave feedback
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Alan shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

12 comments

We're glad you're here

Please sign in to leave feedback
Signed in as (Sign out)
Close
Close
Submitting...
An error occurred while saving the comment
  • Mani commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Hi , any update on offering Premium Storage for Azure file service?? we did a SAGE database migration from On-prem to Azure cloud. This setup needs a Azure file share service and the throughput sucks.. Now my client is asking us to move to AWS.... This is ridiculous. i wish i knew this before.

  • naoto saito commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please hurry up. I "REALLY" want to use premium storage for file service since 2016.
    If you can't, I'm going to move to AWS or GCP.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    this is very important feature. In our scenario the Azure File API is used to keep up to date a drive of data, which serves as the base for several FTP servers. The solution works great, but the throughput of HDD is becoming a bottleneck.

  • Barenya kumar padhi commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I am transfering data from vm to files share of storage account with standard and LRS conifiguration but it has very slow meand only 1mb speed

  • PRISMA Computer GmbH commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Since Azures SMB implementation is only an overlay over the blob storage (a Microsoft employee wrote that somewhere in a blog) I can't understand why I makes generally a difference whether normal our premium storage is used...

  • Lucian Daia commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Although Azure files looked great when it was first released, it's seriously lagging behind Amazon EFS today. It's not even close in terms of latency, throughput and scalability.
    Not sure how popular the service is, but from our experience it's one of the most important services used by customers.

    So here's a small comparison to maybe help prioritize this particular request a bit higher:
    - Azure Files uses SMB (available natively on both Windows and Linux), can scale up to 5 TB in storage and delivers 1000 IOPS @ 8KB (~8 MB/sec)
    - AWS EFS uses NFS (lower latency, but only available natively on Linux), can scale to a few petabytes and delivers at least 100 MB/sec, but can go up to over 1 GB/sec.

    If I was a company looking into migrating a file-share dependent workload into the cloud, making a choice between these two would be quite easy.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This feature would be really useful to us.
    We host web farms and apps on VMs within a RG.
    We are currently using Web Deploy to keep the Web and App content in "near real time"sync thus avoiding DFS and it's associated costs and overheads in both time to administer and VMs. If we had Premium Storage we could centralise the files and use existing MS technologies, like shared Config for IIS. This would remove the need for syncing and offer improved reliability. We already have it set up and it works, but due the transaction end to end time it's just too slow and we cannot offer it to our customers.

  • Jascha Schmidt commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please prioritize this request to improve the following Performance issues:

    - high read and write latency
    - the extracting of zip archives on the fileshare is very slow
    - file download via HTTP and HTTPS requests is very slow

Storage: Files

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)
Hosted by UserVoice