Our active project data lives in SharePoint sites. When projects finish, I currently move them into a dedicated archive user licensed with Business Premium and OneDrive for Business Plan 2. That account contains about 5.8 TB of data out of a 7.5 TB limit, and leadership has view-only access for occasional reference. A Synology NAS also backs up both SharePoint and the archive account.
Since OneDrive for Business Plan 2 is being discontinued, I need a new way to retain this volume of archive data. Azure Files is one option, but we are fully remote and have users on many different ISPs, so I'm concerned about unreliable access. I'd prefer not to introduce Azure File Sync and local caching just for archived material.
What storage or archiving approaches are others using in this situation? Should I move completed projects into dedicated SharePoint sites and archive them, use cold storage or another vendor, or rely more heavily on the Synology systems?
4 Answers
Azure Files can work well for controlled server or office access, but it is not necessarily a pleasant direct file-share experience for a fully remote workforce spread across unreliable connections. Without local caching or another access layer, intermittent connectivity and authentication issues can make it frustrating. A dedicated cloud storage provider with an archive or unlimited-capacity plan may be worth comparing, especially if leadership only needs occasional read access rather than constant collaboration.
Another option is to archive the completed SharePoint sites rather than copying their contents into a user account. That keeps the site’s metadata and structure available for restoration if a project needs to be brought back, while removing it from the normal active-storage footprint. You’ll want to confirm exactly how the archive and rehydration features are licensed and priced before committing, but it is a better fit than treating a personal OneDrive account as a document repository.
A dedicated SharePoint site for each completed project is probably the cleanest Microsoft-native replacement. You can preserve the existing view-only permissions, retain the project structure and metadata, and archive the site when it is no longer active. If needed, increase the tenant’s SharePoint storage allocation rather than trying to force everything into one archive user. The main drawback is cost: several terabytes of additional SharePoint storage can become expensive.
Since you already operate Synology systems, using them as the primary archive may be more economical than expanding Microsoft 365 storage. Keep multiple copies or separate NAS units, restrict the archive shares to read-only access for leadership, and make sure you have an off-site or immutable backup. This avoids putting 5.8 TB into a service that charges heavily for additional capacity, while still allowing users to access older projects when necessary.
The archive user was mainly the path of least resistance when this was first set up. I’m now comparing SharePoint archiving with colder, less expensive storage and possibly moving the archive to another vendor.