Dan Sarandrea

My feedback

  1. 1,136 votes
    Sign in
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    78 comments  ·  Storage » Files  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi folks,

    We are evaluating what we can do to address this feedback and would very much appreciate your continued votes and suggestions on it.

    One alternative to mounting the share on-premises over port 445 is Azure File Sync, which enables you to create a cache of an Azure file share on an on-premises Windows Server. Azure File Sync only sends data over the Azure Files HTTPS (using the File REST APIs). You can learn more about Azure File Sync here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/files/storage-sync-files-planning

    Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any additional questions!


    Will Gries
    Program Manager, Azure Files

    Dan Sarandrea commented  · 

    Wow, they STILL haven't done squat on this design deficiency. Maybe there is some technical reason that keeps them from allowing a connection on an alternate port.

    So MS and Azure powers-that-be, try a COLLABORATIVE solution! Get together with one major ISP, say Comcast as they have been mentioned here often, and for the BENEFIT OF MUTUAL CUSTOMERS, WORK IT OUT so that Comcast allows traffic on 445 to the Azure range of IP addresses. If that solves the problem, it's a model for future collaboration with additional major ISPs.

    Dan Sarandrea commented  · 

    What is the point of Azure File Storage and developing SMB v3.x when a huge percentage of ISPs block the port that your services use?

    C'mon Azure People, get with it! Make it so that Azure File Storage can use some other port besides the beyond-hope 445!!! SMH!

    Dan Sarandrea supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base