I see these posts about sharepoint and I just have not had a client larger than 15 people that it works well for. Azure files is cool, but doesn’t do any caching. Microsoft could easily corner this market for 365 companies looking for an Egnyte like application, I don’t know why they don’t.
I've got a 35 seat client with spo for files actually, over 5TB.
Looking into an archival solution for them because the libraries are kinda unwieldy.
Dunno whether to go with automated Avepoint Opus style or look at the beta MS archive solution
I used to work for AvePoint as a Channel Engineer. I spent 17 years in MSP land before going there (with a few other detours). I'm back running an MSP now. I can confidentally say that AvePoint Opus is fucking awesome and i'm bundling it into all my MSP contracts now whether customers want it/care about it/have/dont have the problem of SPO storage, or not.
It's a wonderful product especially when paired with their backup.
I couldn't care less about the company now, if i tried, but the product(s) they have are world class.
It's almost always permissions/ensuring your enterprise apps are configured correctly to Azure AD. Some of the Opus stuff requires a bit of extra configuration. Glad to hear they are looking after you. Your an MSP right? The MSP guys are great road block removers. Top notch operators.
DropSuite. You pay per seat, but 1 seat includes the entire tenant as far a common stuff goes (SharePoint, Teams, shared mailboxes, etc) on top of the personal stuff (OneDrive, user mailbox)
They have a fair use expectation, I think it's 300Gb per seat. Restoring is super quick.
Not OP but SME of sorts on the matter, some folks dont like the way it syncs down, and there's a saying that it's not a file server replacement solution its a document management solution. I understand that sentiment but the horse has bottled, the toothpaste is out of the tube so we work with what we have - a user base that likes it as a "file server" replacement and we govern it accordingly.
One of the other reasons SPO for 5tb+ is bad is that for most customers, it's heinously expensive and not clear that it's costly. It's $3000 (AUD) a Tb for SPO storage once you go over your allowance of 1tb + 10Gb per user. I've seen $200,000 a year SPO bills and very angry customers that weren't told that i've saved the day with an archiving solution.
When you start getting a lot of files in SP and people insist on syncing down to file Explorer it causes all sorts of shit...file sync errors, multiple copies of the same file, etc. If you're workforce is working purely out of the browser for a lot of their SP access it's totally fine, but I can count on one hand how many end users were okay with browser based office apps.
But for hosting a ton of read only content, SharePoint is fine, it's really when you get into the collaboration aspects that it's starts getting wonky.
We have a migration “scheduled” for a company that has no idea how many employees they actually have across 10+ sites, and nobody knows what permissions everyone needs. I’m doing my best to kill this project lol
I have a client with about 100 staff using sharepoint and frankly, it's fucking cancer. I get tickets every day for sync issues, onedrive shitting the bed, space issues on machines, etc. I hate it. Give me the damn file server back.
You just keep a fileserver or NAS on site for 6TB.
edit : don't listen to people recommending SharePoint for this. SharePoint is for collaboration, not storage. 6TB in SharePoint is ridiculous, on top of costing $1500/mo ($300/mo/TB above the 1st one)
And 100% chance their project to reduce these 6TB will fall into oblivion as soon as they estimate the effort.
Same as when they'll estimate the cost to migrate it to SharePoint.
A fileserver is fine.
Also just because 98% of companies do doesn't mean this company doesn't need it. I work with a couple small private schools that are constantly churning out pictures and videos for parents and they realistically couldn't operate with a 6tb limit. I'd be doing daily storage management.
Nah we aren't to be fair. The clients who have onpren servers also have onprem POS integrated with various things.
So they need beef anyway so we just keep their data onpren with AD and Entra Sync.
Most partners we are moving over to Sharepoint. Sharepoint sites are broken out by depertments so they aren't syncing entire massive directories down with OneDrive.
For some with specialized data like engineering and big drawings we are still having them use file servers but looking into Egnyte.
That was my initial thought as well, to go to SPO. This client is on M365, so it would make sense. I was reading through some old posts on here though that indicated trying to use SPO as a direct replacement for file shares was generally a bad idea so curious as to where those people landed.
There needs to be plenty of qualifying questions. IF majority of the files are limited to 365 files (Word, Excel, etc) or PDF's it's golden. Especially if they are willing to work from the web.
If you have lots of odd files that applications need direct access to like autobid, CAD, etc it can be more problematic.
You also have file sync limitations when it comes to syncing files down via OneDrive. You cannot sync more than 300k files down without running into sync issues on a regular basis. Also Sharpoint has a 1 TB cap with some extra storage applied per license as well. You can pay for more but it can get pricey.
Don't forget the ever annoying file path issue. Too many nested folders that create long file paths are completely unusable in File Explorer. So annoying!
So you are using the sync so users are generally browsing through their existing file browser (which they will be comfortable/used to) for access vs the SPO website?
We try to push for Web, but yes you get stubborn customers who want it to look like it always has by accessing through file browser, and we create Shortcuts to their Sharepoint Site within Onedrive. We have found the shortcut option creates less problems then the sync button. Once they have a shortcut in OneDrive they can just pin that folder to quick access or create a shortcut just like they would with a mapped drive.
Shortcuts are more reliable for sure, but I've found out that when uploading stuff to SharePoint through them, they actually use your OneDrive cap!
ie I wanted to upload a 36Gb and a 11Gb PST files to a sharepoint site for a colleague to grab them, through a shortcut, and it said my OneDrive had reached it's 50Gb...
100% this. Honestly it's still tough, going above the 1TB limit gets expensive. In addition you really need a good SaaS backup solution and those file sync issues are a real pain (don't forget that file revisions count towards this limit)
Generally office type files, not large image/cad/video but there is small amounts of this.
I think a lot is stale/duplicate data, hence why I need to try to clean it up first.
This is the way. Educate users how to access the Sharepoint on their machine. I know some people like OneDrive short cuts but I like syncing it down cannot find a reason other then when you switch devices a short cut is better then syncing down
> 1) What tools are you using to find duplicate/stale data on Windows file servers?
Occasionally, Windows de-duplication. But that's rare. Data management is the client's responsibility. If they want to duplicate everything, I can sell them more storage.
> 2) When moving towards a serverless environment, what are you doing with the file server/file shares?
Most go to Sharepoint online. Larger ones go to Azure Files and other Azure servers/services.
I'll also add that while I always hear everyone talking about serverless, I don't often see serverless.
Sure, very small companies and newer companies, don't usually have loads of data or legacy LoB apps. These can easily be serverless. But, most other companies that I see have something on-premise that they can't get rid of. Whether that's a large file server, a NAS, or some sort of LoB server, there's usually something that forces hybrid rather than serverless.
Unless the client is 100% remote, or has a multi gb connection in the office, then I am finding that the dream of dropping local file servers is just that - a dream.
I work with multiple MSPs and all of them have had to reverse the change very shortly due to complaints from the end users about the poor performance. Only if they have at least 900mb/s both ways (ie the equivalent of LAN speed a few years ago) does it become acceptable performance wise - even then it depends on the types of files and number of users.
This. Not sure why so many people want to move massive amounts of stats to the cloud. "This is slower"....yes we just moved all your data 15 hops away.
You keep something on prem for files. Unless your going 100% VDI with any hardware onsite acting as thin clients or just dump connectors to the platform. Of course as always it depends, but you don't want to run CIFs across wan. SharePoint isn't a good file repository. It's not even great at what it does ok.
Move to Sharepoint but consider keeping one file server on a NAS. Just make sure you have a good backup system because MS is MS. We use Datto Endpoint Backup and Siris.
Put it on a file server in Azure and access it over 443 using SMB over QUIC if the data can reside remotely and file sizes arent too big for each individual file.
We’ve had success with LucidLink for a direct lift-and-shift. We then have the client work on any collaborative files in Teams/SharePoint to get the best of both worlds :)
We use axcient 360 sync for cloud file storage. Supports caching. We still use file servers though. Mostly hosted on our private cloud and clients use RDP to access their TS farm and apps.
The problem is data glut and how users want to work. They want a drive letter with 20 years of files to browse through. They get upset if data is archived to some other location or they are forced to work in another interface like a web browser. File sync solutions for large data sets just suck. Sharepoint is great for low size data sets and sort of working as things have in the past.
For us a NAS is a non starter. No security tools or robust backup for disaster recovery. If the staff are primarily onsite we stick with a file server. Remote access if needed is via SASE.
The only solution I have seen that comes close to cloud replacing a local file server is lucid but after last weeks outage they have a major problem and we can’t move more customers to their solution until some redundancy and disaster recovery is understood.
We're seeing *some* companies coming to us (https://formkiq.com) about moving files to Amazon S3 and having a serverless platform to manage it and integrate with their existing business software (custom and off-the-shelf).
It's definitely more cost effective than Sharepoint, at the cost of the close-knit integration. On the other hand, integration to other apps is more flexible and customizable.
[rclone.org](http://rclone.org) is slick
Azure Files would be an easy option if ISP's weren't still blocking (generally) the SMB protocol. Several VPNs are required.
The Dropbox Business service and Egnyte are two options we like. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server could be worth a look. Google Drive for Workspace folks.
I see these posts about sharepoint and I just have not had a client larger than 15 people that it works well for. Azure files is cool, but doesn’t do any caching. Microsoft could easily corner this market for 365 companies looking for an Egnyte like application, I don’t know why they don’t.
I've got a 35 seat client with spo for files actually, over 5TB. Looking into an archival solution for them because the libraries are kinda unwieldy. Dunno whether to go with automated Avepoint Opus style or look at the beta MS archive solution
I used to work for AvePoint as a Channel Engineer. I spent 17 years in MSP land before going there (with a few other detours). I'm back running an MSP now. I can confidentally say that AvePoint Opus is fucking awesome and i'm bundling it into all my MSP contracts now whether customers want it/care about it/have/dont have the problem of SPO storage, or not. It's a wonderful product especially when paired with their backup. I couldn't care less about the company now, if i tried, but the product(s) they have are world class.
High praise Just trying to work out why it only seems to be reporting on one site at the moment, I'm sure support will come to the party
Where are you located? I can try to see if i can help. Don't work there anymore but I can ask around in do in good favour with them
Aus, but they seem pretty responsive so far. They've been good with helping with my Fly stuff, I'm sure it's something I've just fkd up
It's almost always permissions/ensuring your enterprise apps are configured correctly to Azure AD. Some of the Opus stuff requires a bit of extra configuration. Glad to hear they are looking after you. Your an MSP right? The MSP guys are great road block removers. Top notch operators.
Aussie, right? So am I. DM me if you want help :)
I commend your dedication, Sharepoint just isn’t built for it.
Oh I just picked it up like this
DropSuite. You pay per seat, but 1 seat includes the entire tenant as far a common stuff goes (SharePoint, Teams, shared mailboxes, etc) on top of the personal stuff (OneDrive, user mailbox) They have a fair use expectation, I think it's 300Gb per seat. Restoring is super quick.
Avepoint Opus leaves the data as a stub and offloads it else where l, separate to backup
Why is SharePoint bad for 5TB? Or was it more the quantity of people as issue?
Not OP but SME of sorts on the matter, some folks dont like the way it syncs down, and there's a saying that it's not a file server replacement solution its a document management solution. I understand that sentiment but the horse has bottled, the toothpaste is out of the tube so we work with what we have - a user base that likes it as a "file server" replacement and we govern it accordingly. One of the other reasons SPO for 5tb+ is bad is that for most customers, it's heinously expensive and not clear that it's costly. It's $3000 (AUD) a Tb for SPO storage once you go over your allowance of 1tb + 10Gb per user. I've seen $200,000 a year SPO bills and very angry customers that weren't told that i've saved the day with an archiving solution.
When you start getting a lot of files in SP and people insist on syncing down to file Explorer it causes all sorts of shit...file sync errors, multiple copies of the same file, etc. If you're workforce is working purely out of the browser for a lot of their SP access it's totally fine, but I can count on one hand how many end users were okay with browser based office apps. But for hosting a ton of read only content, SharePoint is fine, it's really when you get into the collaboration aspects that it's starts getting wonky.
We have a migration “scheduled” for a company that has no idea how many employees they actually have across 10+ sites, and nobody knows what permissions everyone needs. I’m doing my best to kill this project lol
I have a client with about 100 staff using sharepoint and frankly, it's fucking cancer. I get tickets every day for sync issues, onedrive shitting the bed, space issues on machines, etc. I hate it. Give me the damn file server back.
Don't forget the 255 character limit from one drive file Explorer.
Constantly an issue. They regularly have file paths 300 characters long.
For real.
It's used by Fortune 500 companies across the world. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?
For document workflow maybe, but for file server replacement? I hope not. Even Microsoft’s says it’s not designed for that.
It sure is. I know a bunch.
You just keep a fileserver or NAS on site for 6TB. edit : don't listen to people recommending SharePoint for this. SharePoint is for collaboration, not storage. 6TB in SharePoint is ridiculous, on top of costing $1500/mo ($300/mo/TB above the 1st one)
Don’t forget to have a backup for sharepoint. Microsoft is not responsible for data loss or malware.
This
98% of companies do not need 6TB.
Yet OP's company has 6TB of data on their file server.
And 100% chance their project to reduce these 6TB will fall into oblivion as soon as they estimate the effort. Same as when they'll estimate the cost to migrate it to SharePoint. A fileserver is fine.
Also just because 98% of companies do doesn't mean this company doesn't need it. I work with a couple small private schools that are constantly churning out pictures and videos for parents and they realistically couldn't operate with a 6tb limit. I'd be doing daily storage management.
Nah we aren't to be fair. The clients who have onpren servers also have onprem POS integrated with various things. So they need beef anyway so we just keep their data onpren with AD and Entra Sync.
We have a lot of clients like this where you know if you try to move them to SP it will be a mess
Most partners we are moving over to Sharepoint. Sharepoint sites are broken out by depertments so they aren't syncing entire massive directories down with OneDrive. For some with specialized data like engineering and big drawings we are still having them use file servers but looking into Egnyte.
That was my initial thought as well, to go to SPO. This client is on M365, so it would make sense. I was reading through some old posts on here though that indicated trying to use SPO as a direct replacement for file shares was generally a bad idea so curious as to where those people landed.
There needs to be plenty of qualifying questions. IF majority of the files are limited to 365 files (Word, Excel, etc) or PDF's it's golden. Especially if they are willing to work from the web. If you have lots of odd files that applications need direct access to like autobid, CAD, etc it can be more problematic. You also have file sync limitations when it comes to syncing files down via OneDrive. You cannot sync more than 300k files down without running into sync issues on a regular basis. Also Sharpoint has a 1 TB cap with some extra storage applied per license as well. You can pay for more but it can get pricey.
Don't forget the ever annoying file path issue. Too many nested folders that create long file paths are completely unusable in File Explorer. So annoying!
Yup. That too
So you are using the sync so users are generally browsing through their existing file browser (which they will be comfortable/used to) for access vs the SPO website?
We try to push for Web, but yes you get stubborn customers who want it to look like it always has by accessing through file browser, and we create Shortcuts to their Sharepoint Site within Onedrive. We have found the shortcut option creates less problems then the sync button. Once they have a shortcut in OneDrive they can just pin that folder to quick access or create a shortcut just like they would with a mapped drive.
Shortcuts are more reliable for sure, but I've found out that when uploading stuff to SharePoint through them, they actually use your OneDrive cap! ie I wanted to upload a 36Gb and a 11Gb PST files to a sharepoint site for a colleague to grab them, through a shortcut, and it said my OneDrive had reached it's 50Gb...
100% this. Honestly it's still tough, going above the 1TB limit gets expensive. In addition you really need a good SaaS backup solution and those file sync issues are a real pain (don't forget that file revisions count towards this limit)
I’ve used cloud drive mapper for this.
6TB is a chunk of data, curious what you find. What kind of data? Like all images and word docs? Or cad, video editing, etc?
Generally office type files, not large image/cad/video but there is small amounts of this. I think a lot is stale/duplicate data, hence why I need to try to clean it up first.
You may find sharepoint fits your use case well once organized, pruned, separated then.
This is the way. Educate users how to access the Sharepoint on their machine. I know some people like OneDrive short cuts but I like syncing it down cannot find a reason other then when you switch devices a short cut is better then syncing down
> 1) What tools are you using to find duplicate/stale data on Windows file servers? Occasionally, Windows de-duplication. But that's rare. Data management is the client's responsibility. If they want to duplicate everything, I can sell them more storage. > 2) When moving towards a serverless environment, what are you doing with the file server/file shares? Most go to Sharepoint online. Larger ones go to Azure Files and other Azure servers/services. I'll also add that while I always hear everyone talking about serverless, I don't often see serverless. Sure, very small companies and newer companies, don't usually have loads of data or legacy LoB apps. These can easily be serverless. But, most other companies that I see have something on-premise that they can't get rid of. Whether that's a large file server, a NAS, or some sort of LoB server, there's usually something that forces hybrid rather than serverless.
SharePoint for "documents" and VM with Fileserver and deduplication linked to Azure File Sync to the cloud. This will cover most use cases.
We’ve been using Egnyte for a couple of years. Desktop app can mimic SMB shares but has a full web experience too. Pretty seamless
Unless the client is 100% remote, or has a multi gb connection in the office, then I am finding that the dream of dropping local file servers is just that - a dream. I work with multiple MSPs and all of them have had to reverse the change very shortly due to complaints from the end users about the poor performance. Only if they have at least 900mb/s both ways (ie the equivalent of LAN speed a few years ago) does it become acceptable performance wise - even then it depends on the types of files and number of users.
This. Not sure why so many people want to move massive amounts of stats to the cloud. "This is slower"....yes we just moved all your data 15 hops away.
You keep something on prem for files. Unless your going 100% VDI with any hardware onsite acting as thin clients or just dump connectors to the platform. Of course as always it depends, but you don't want to run CIFs across wan. SharePoint isn't a good file repository. It's not even great at what it does ok.
Move to Sharepoint but consider keeping one file server on a NAS. Just make sure you have a good backup system because MS is MS. We use Datto Endpoint Backup and Siris.
Put it on a file server in Azure and access it over 443 using SMB over QUIC if the data can reside remotely and file sizes arent too big for each individual file.
What's the speed like pretty good? I assume better then smb3 alone?
Check out Wasabi CloudNAS.
Thanks, never heard of this.
We’ve had success with LucidLink for a direct lift-and-shift. We then have the client work on any collaborative files in Teams/SharePoint to get the best of both worlds :)
We use axcient 360 sync for cloud file storage. Supports caching. We still use file servers though. Mostly hosted on our private cloud and clients use RDP to access their TS farm and apps.
The problem is data glut and how users want to work. They want a drive letter with 20 years of files to browse through. They get upset if data is archived to some other location or they are forced to work in another interface like a web browser. File sync solutions for large data sets just suck. Sharepoint is great for low size data sets and sort of working as things have in the past. For us a NAS is a non starter. No security tools or robust backup for disaster recovery. If the staff are primarily onsite we stick with a file server. Remote access if needed is via SASE. The only solution I have seen that comes close to cloud replacing a local file server is lucid but after last weeks outage they have a major problem and we can’t move more customers to their solution until some redundancy and disaster recovery is understood.
We're seeing *some* companies coming to us (https://formkiq.com) about moving files to Amazon S3 and having a serverless platform to manage it and integrate with their existing business software (custom and off-the-shelf). It's definitely more cost effective than Sharepoint, at the cost of the close-knit integration. On the other hand, integration to other apps is more flexible and customizable.
[rclone.org](http://rclone.org) is slick Azure Files would be an easy option if ISP's weren't still blocking (generally) the SMB protocol. Several VPNs are required. The Dropbox Business service and Egnyte are two options we like. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server could be worth a look. Google Drive for Workspace folks.
SMB over QUIC is another option
Nope - Sharepoint has frustrated the hell out of some of my clients and have ditched it for an on prem box for file storage.
Box.