![]() ![]() Poor scalability: AFS doesn’t handle sync for large deployments well.But as your sync environment grows - i.e., syncing large files, syncing more files, syncing to many endpoints - managing sync becomes more complex (i.e., requires more management endpoints). Complexity of file sync management: Managing synchronization with AFS is easy for simple, homogenous sync environments.Transferring files point-to-point creates a bottleneck effect if one point fails, the whole sync job grinds to a halt. Slow sync topology: Like most file sync solutions, AFS uses a point-to-point file transfer topology.Businesses that are already using other storage solutions will have to migrate or use a more flexible sync solution that can be deployed on the storage they’re using. And for cloud storage, it’s limited to Azure file storage. Lack of flexibility: AFS can only be deployed on Windows, Linux, and macOS servers.Azure only: AFS is not multicloud, meaning you can’t use it with other cloud solutions. ![]() ![]() And while it works well for small-scale sync jobs, organizations with larger, more complex replication and sync requirements that need to sync at scale may want to consider an Azure File Sync (AFS) alternative (or complementary solution that can fill in the gaps).Īnother big reason to consider an alternative to AFS is the need for multiple cloud solutions (AFS only works with Azure) and/or to maximize utilization of your existing IT environment (servers, storage, networks, etc.). Microsoft Azure File Sync is a software-only solution for replicating and syncing Windows file servers with Azure Files. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |