NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

We are using it for configuring NAS as well as the SAN environment.

Most of our business-critical systems are provisioned from the NetApp AFF system. Compared to others, we have a minimal latency. Configuring the DR for high availability or migrating the volumes from one box to another is pretty easy with NetApp AFF.

One of the features that I like in NetApp is cluster configuration where multiple systems can be configured in a single cluster. Its advantage is that we can easily migrate the workload from one system to another without any downtime. With zero downtime, we can migrate the systems. That is one of the advantages of NetApp AFF.

NetApp AFF reduces operational latency depending on the systems, the SAN infrastructure, and the server. It is a maximum of one or two milliseconds, and some of the systems do work in 0.5 milliseconds latency.

For performance tuning, there is a tool called Unified Manager as well as the Active IQ system. The initial troubleshooting is very easy. From the administrator front directly, we can log in to Active IQ. It analyzes the logs in the system and suggests what needs to be improved. From a performance point of view, there is a tool called Unified Manager that shows us a clear picture of the historical volume latency. These tools help us to manage the system very easily, but if there is still something that we are not able to figure out through these tools, then we reach out to the support team.

We have snapshots, and we have even configured storage-based replication with this product. The majority of our virtual workloads are provisioned from this product as well. Our workload VMs are provisioned in this storage.

For replication and snapshots, it is more user-friendly and easy to use as compared to some of the other OEM products, such as HPE 3PAR and Dell Unity. 

Migrating from a public cloud to on-prem or on-prem to a cloud can be a bit complicated. They have their own solution, but it should be easy to use.

We have been using NetApp AFF for the last three to four years.

The product is very stable. The hardware is very stable. The operating system is also very stable.

It is scalable.

I do not face any challenges with NetApp. The support team or everything else is good. If we face any kind of breakdown or any challenge, we can easily reach out to the NetApp backend team. That is one of the advantages of NetApp. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have worked with the Dell Unity and VNX products. We migrated from Dell to NetApp because of the advantage of configuring the unified storage, such as NAS and SAN, in a single box.

Apart from that, the end customer preferred to configure DR, and NetApp has its own solution with this device. The end customer also wanted the snapshot feature, and NetApp has its own feature.

In addition, every four or five years, when the system gets old, we need to migrate the workloads to a new system. NetApp has an advantage there because we can purchase a new system and configure it in the same existing cluster. Once it is configured in the existing cluster, from the back or from storage to storage, we can do the migration without any downtime. That is one of the advantages of NetApp.

We have not worked with other NetApp solutions much. We only tested ONTAP and the AWS or the Google Platform Service with NetApp, but we are not using it in our production environment.

It is easy to deploy and use. It takes three to five hours. One person is enough for it.

The installation or the initial setup is done by OEM or NetApp engineers. After the initial setup is done, our internal team takes care of the other activities. After the management connectivity and physical parts are established in the backend, our in-house engineer takes care of it.

If you have a virtual environment with the SAN and NAS workloads, NetApp is very suitable. Apart from that, if you are looking for a DR solution, it is very easy to configure DR in NetApp. NetApp also has its own object storage, so object storage is also available in the existing platform and existing versions. If you are using any in-house S3 type of solution, that is available in this.

Overall, I would rate NetApp AFF a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for NAS and SAN.

NetApp helped us with its ease of deployment and ease of use.

The solution's data protection and data management are also easy.

AFF has improved our response time by about 30%.

We have enough storage, especially with the enhanced deduplication and compaction. It is good to be able to have a multitude of environments without having to worry about having spaces deployed. We always have a good amount of space. We do have multi-performance, with different performance layers for slower and quicker storage.

Multi-protocol is the most valuable feature for us. It does everything in one system: CIFS, ISCSI, and fiber channel. Other systems don't do all that.

The procurement process could be improved. It takes a long time for us to receive stuff. The product is good. It's not the product, it's just that it takes forever to get it. It's not our reseller's problem; it's usually held up at NetApp.

Waiting for equipment is one of our biggest hiccups. I live in Pennsylvania and we flew out to Washington state to do an install. We were there for three days, but the product didn't show up. We left and the product came the next day. Then we had to send somebody else out. That's because things were getting held up in shipping and stuff like that. The shipping is my only beef with NetApp.

It is easy to deploy and it's scalable.

I am happy with their technical support. It's not bad. We haven't had to use it very much, but I think they're proficient.

We had an AFF already there. We just upgraded. In my previous company, where I was for five years, we used NetApp extensively. So I had a lot of experience and interaction with it.

We found the setup straightforward. I've been using NetApp for a long time, though.

Our partner is a good friend of mine. I've worked with them for a long time. They work with a lot of other companies. They're huge NetApp distributors.

The price of the upgrading of the solution is high. I could buy a whole unit of All Flash FAS 300 with a shelf for around $285,000. Yet if I want to add one additional shelf, it'll cost me $275,000. So they want you to upgrade by replacing it. It's cheaper to buy a whole new unit than to just scale-out. The upside is they last. AFF lasts us three or four years. So that's a good investment. 

I don't think it's cost-efficient for a lot of people. Their pricing structure is not competitive at this point with other companies. Support is a fortune on it. Every three years you need to do a rip and replace for an upgrade. It's not an in-place upgrade.

We evaluated Pure Storage and Nimble. I've used HPE 3PAR and Tintri as well. We've looked at a lot of different vendors. Most of them were better in terms of their upgrade process. Nimble and Pure have a hot upgrade process, which NetApp does not have. Although the cost of Pure is a lot more. Nimble was a good product, but they were bought by HP I think, so that will probably go away. I don't see it as much as I did before. We chose NetApp because of its speed and stability.

I think it fits a multitude of needs. For someone who doesn't know how to provision storage, it gives you, SIPS and NAS storage. NAS storage gives you a SAN protocol so you can provision ISCSI fiber channel one, depending on what you're using it for. It's basically an all-in-one solution. It does everything for you.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. There have been a few times we've seen buggy releases on some of the ONTAP software upgrades. Nine is good, though. I never get a ten when we get our reviews. If you get a ten, there's no room for improvement. Nine gives you room to improve. If you give it a ten, they're not going to have any reason to improve.

It has sped up everything through the all-flash storage. Everything is faster than it used to be. Everybody can access their VDIs fast and get to their servers fast. There is probably a 5x or 10x faster speed, but I am not sure. It is just quick. Nobody is waiting for things anymore.

The switch to the work-from-home model because of COVID was the key challenge that our business wanted to address. Before COVID, it was all in the office, and then after COVID, everyone was working from home. We wanted to scale the VDIs easily and spin up VMs that people can use on a day-to-day basis.

All-flash storage has definitely delivered the most value to our organization. We have a large VDI deployment, and there is now no wait time when they are booting up. Everything is quick. Everything builds fast. I would give it a ten out of ten. It is easy to use. It just runs. I never have to touch it. Without it, we would probably not have been able to grow our VDI deployment. The compression and dedupe required would not have been possible without it.

I would like to improve the ransomware aspect. We get a lot of false positives, and there are no details of what is happening. This seems to be already fixed in the new version.

Previously, we have used Hitachi and other lesser-known solid-state storage vendors. I do not know the reason for choosing NetApp at the time because I was not there for that decision.

I am familiar with other solutions. The advantage of the NetApp solution is that it is easy to use. SnapMirror is very nice and easy to set up. It is easy. When we push in a volume, it is automatically replicated to our DR site. It is touch and go. We can do it with one click.

We have been working with NetApp for the last five to eight years. We have not evaluated any other solution. We have been happy with them, so we stuck with them.

We definitely like the anti-ransomware capability. That is cool to have. I am excited to go to the new version where we also have fewer false positives. There is all-new reporting which is cool, so I will have to look at how to do more in-depth reporting than what we do now.

Data is always growing. We will see where our usage goes. We have had the biggest impact by going to the all-flash storage. We just purchased a C800, so that would be around for the next couple of years. We do not have any goals for our next technology investments over the next couple of years.

We are not yet too big on AI. It would be exciting to try to use some of the AI features. I want to see how that works.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Its use cases include everything from high bandwidth to low latency, AI workloads based on NVMe drives, and all the way to our basic home directories and what I call common plop-and-drop drives for the teams. 

The challenge that we were trying to address by implementing NetApp AFF was that we needed truly high-speed storage to feed the GPUs for AI/ML workloads. We also had the financial responsibility of being able to lower the QoS when we just needed basic storage rather than Pure high-performance storage.

NetApp AFF has helped with faster data, and at the same time, we are able to work with our solutions team to set up FlexCache share so that we can more easily set up data pipelines and data life cycles. We can also integrate with our corporate systems for replication.

NetApp AFF has helped to simplify our infrastructure while still getting very high performance for our business-critical applications. The flexibility to keep everything on superfast NVMe but also tweak the QoS has allowed us to centralize more of our storage services. We need less rack space. We are using Keystone for financial responsibility. We have centralized and standardized a lot of our ITOps.

NetApp AFF has not helped to reduce support issues, such as performance-tuning and troubleshooting, because we have not had any issues yet that we had to take a look at, and I hope we do not.

NetApp AFF has definitely helped to reduce our operational latency. Especially with the speeds of the drives and the network links and the network topology that we are able to put together, for not just huge dense workloads, we are able to scale out horizontally so everyone can get the same speed. 

NetApp AFF has not saved us much cost, but the Keystone model that we are able to run AFF in partnership with has helped to save costs. Instead of making those huge capital purchases where we may purchase 500 terabytes and not use it, the consumption-based model has allowed us to be flexible. It gives us that financial flexibility to say, "We want to experiment with this more. Add it on." We can also say, "We do not need it. Take it back, and give us that plug-and-play option."

The ease of use for setting up our basic shares such as NFS and CIFS is valuable. It takes a couple of clicks to set up things like object shares. 

The ONTAP S3 implementation is not feature-complete as compared to StorageGRID. We had to move our lakeFS instance from ONTAP S3 based on AFF to StorageGRID.

The lab that I am developing has used NetApp AFF and NetApp storage for about two years, but I know that our organization, in general, has been using NetApp for storage for a long time.

I have not thought about it. It must be good because I have not had to think about it.

Based on your current needs and based on your inter-cluster switches, you need more storage added in, and you are good to go. You can create new aggregates and SVMs, and you are good to go.

The support is great. We have a dedicated team. I can work with our dedicated embedded professional services group. If it is a larger issue, I can send a message to our support ops engineer and get an answer right away, or even proactively.

Positive

This lab is brand new, we started with NetApp AFF. 

I am a nerd at heart, so I worked with our professional services group to do the rack and stack. It was pretty straightforward. It was based on the idea of centralized controllers with expanded disk shares. We were able to work with our professional services consultant to get it set up in two days or so.

We were able to have those huge savings as our lab was being stood up, and now, as our usage increases, our cost increases, and as our usage decreases, our cost decreases. We have been able to see that trend match up with how we are using it. 

We did not evaluate other options because it is part of a centralized storage offering with our company. We wanted to keep everything on the same level for ease of use for purchasing, operations, shared ownership, and everything else.

In terms of using other NetApp solutions or services, we use less of NetApp Cloud Services, but we do use Cloud Volumes ONTAP. We also use SnapMirror and FlexCache for a lot of the intra or inter-site capabilities.

I would rate NetApp AFF a 10 out of 10.

Our use cases are related to VMware Infrastructure.

AFF has helped us simplify our infrastructure. It's made our operations more stable and dependable. There's not much downtime.

It provides very high performance for our business-critical applications.

Moreover, AFF has helped to reduce support issues such as performance tuning and troubleshooting. Overall, it has been helpful. The system is very stable and reliable.

AFF has helped to reduce our operational latency and optimize costs very significantly. 

From an IT perspective, there's not a lot of babysitting. It maintains itself. It is a very dependable tool.

In future releases, I would like to see the ability to automatically mount SMB shares and file systems. 

We have been using AFF for seven years. 

I am happy with the stability of the solution. 

It is able to scale according to our needs. I can grow my storage capacity as much as I need, there is no limit.

The customer service and support are fantastic. They have been great. 

Positive

We used a different storage solution prior to AFF.

We made a switch to AFF because we wanted to keep everything consistent and wanted to have ONTAP everywhere. So, we decided to standardize on NetApp AFF for all our storage needs. It has been working out well for us.  

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The stability of AFF alone has been a significant ROI.

We evaluated other options. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We're using NetApp AFF primarily for file and block storage. We have deployments for remote sites and our data centers, and we also use it for NAS file storage, both NFS and CIFS. We're also using it as a cloud backup, so it is like our tertiary spot for cold data or snapshots. 

Our team is gaining experience with ONTAP, which works similarly in the cloud with Azure. As the business has more requests for spinning up new apps in Azure, we'll have the expertise to deploy that quickly in Azure natively with ONTAP stuff. 

Our architecture has historically relied on RDMs, so AFF has enabled us to easily migrate from our old EMC PowerMax to the new NetApp. It's been pretty smooth. We have a lot of SAP servers in our environment, so performance is critical for us. 

AFF is simplifying our operational model. We get a lot of requests from our DBAs for routine operations like quick snapshots, backups, or something related to storage. Those requests happen all the time. You could do that with PowerMax, but the process on NetApp is more straightforward and less prone to error. We're a small team supporting a global organization, and every minute we can shave off our routine operations does make a difference for us. It enables us to focus on major projects instead of everyday work.

I'm not in the weeds in terms of costs. One of my other colleagues handled that a little more than I did, but time is money, and we can respond faster to requests. That saves everybody's time, improving efficiency and productivity. You get angry when you're on the other side, making requests and waiting. You're like, "Why have they not finished it yet?" Your morale, effectiveness, and productivity can go down. That can spiral out of control. It's a ripple effect of the little things adding up to make a big difference, so that's where I would frame it in terms of cost-effectiveness. 

We have quite a few active-active processes in our data center. We have primary and backup data centers and high-performing databases that require active-active workloads over a 10 gigabit WAN connection. And we are usually at about 1 millisecond latency at all times. So we're hitting it with lots of stuff, and it doesn't bat an eye. It's been very high-performing and easy to use.

I've only been using AFF for about a year now, so I don't have many criticisms. I wrote a lot of the automation for our initial migrations from PowerMax to NetApp and as well as automation related to refreshing our production systems. We clone a lot of our production systems to the testing or QA environments so our developers could use real production data in a safe environment.  

I worked with the APIs quite a bit, including the REST API. We're working to move out from RDMs to do more VMDK-based disks in VMware, which will allow us to use SnapCenter for more efficiency. SnapCenter makes things even simpler than they already are. Additionally, once we are on VMDKs, we’ll be using the SnapCenter API, which I like even better than ONTAP's REST API. 

The ONTAP APIs are good, but little things here and there are slightly different. That adds a little work on my end, but it's ultimately been pretty easy to work with. It's just the consistency of the REST API. About 95 percent of the operations working with the REST API are great, but then you have about 5 percent of things that are slightly different. 

That 5 percent mostly come from response data being returned slightly differently than the ones you've already worked with. It's easy enough to work around but blows up in your face the first time you try it, so you inspect the response to see what changed. I would like it if they worked a little harder to get that a little more perfectly standardized. Thankfully the documentation is top notch, so if you aren’t sure of something specific you can just look it up.

NetApp AFF has been rock-solid. We've had it in production. We did have a node blip recently, but it auto-recovered. Support was automatically alerted, and they told us to check it out. Support had already identified the bug, and there was already a patch for it.

We purchased NetApp AFF with scalability in mind. We ended up going with the A900, which is a switched design, so expanding nodes out will be trivial. For some of our smaller sites, we use the A150, and we don't expect that we will need more. If necessary, we can buy some more A150s and expand without much fuss.

I rate NetApp support 10 out of 10. NetApp AFF reduces support issues like performance tuning and troubleshooting. EMC didn't fail regularly, but EMC support has decreased in quality over the years, and getting satisfactory problem resolution has been challenging. That was one of the factors that started getting us to look at other alternatives. We certainly have had our fair share of implementation issues and little bugs here and there. We ran into a panic bug the weekend before flying over here [to NetApp Insight 2023]. But that was an auto-support case from NetApp and quickly resolved.

They were aware of the problem before we were. It automatically recovered. They found the bug for us and gave us a patch to use when we were ready. In most cases, it was pretty simple. NetApp support has been top-notch.  I've not had any issues working with NetApp. They've been some of the best and brightest people I've worked with in my career.

Positive

We previously used EMC PowerMax. The biggest reason for the switch is that we needed a cloud-ready, cloud-first solution. PowerMax is still a fine platform if you are committed to on-prem and have high-performance on-prem workloads and use cases. It could still be a perfect product for you. However, PowerMax may be limiting if you know your business requirements will take you to the cloud. That's where we were at. Our business was pushing us into the cloud, and we needed more of our workloads to be replicated in the cloud or cloud-native. PowerMax wasn't the right solution for that. 

PowerMax is an aging platform so it doesn't have the flexibility to easily migrate into the cloud. We need our hot-tier data readily accessible on-prem and to be able to access cold storage in the cloud through Azure or whichever provider you want. But we use Azure. That was a key factor for us. We currently use cloud tiering to Azure for automated cold storage processes (mainly for file level data) and we are still exploring additional use cases for future and expanded operations.

We did a six-month proof of concept and put it through its paces. We had a cluster in our primary and backup data centers. We tested out SnapMirror Business Continuity quite thoroughly. That was a new technology for us, and it's still fairly new in its own right. We even did some automation in the proof of concept where we built out a process that explored what our refresh process would look like on NetApp. We were able to bang that out in about three days. It was easy. I was involved with that from day one.

We partnered with CDW during implementation. They've been a fantastic value add for us. We also worked with a rep from NetApp, but we met a lot of NetApp people and CDW people. Both companies brought deep knowledge and expertise. We had a long list of questions that they answered to our satisfaction.

I wouldn't be able to quantify the ROI in dollars and cents, but we've seen improvements in terms of saving time and increasing our effectiveness. My background is in virtualization and networking. I was new to storage when I started working with NetApp only a year ago. It has been easy to figure out. As we grew our infrastructure team, it has been easy to onboard them and get them up to speed, so it's much easier to realize the value we're looking for.

When we bought NetApp, it was very reasonably priced. When you factor in the time savings, it's highly cost-effective. 

I rate NetApp AFF 10 out of 10.  I would recommend AFF depending on your use case. PowerMax might be right for you if you're completely on-prem and have high-performance needs. You need to understand your business requirements and what your developers and DBAs need. It's crucial to figure out exactly what's driving the business. Plot out what the next year or five years will look like and ensure you're in a position to handle those needs. 

Once you know what those needs are, you'll be able to ask NetApp or whatever vendor the right questions. Those should be tough questions you ask your vendor and you should take them to task. If they don't give you good answers, they need to figure something out because you don't want something that doesn't solve your problems. That's pointless. 

If you have your list of requirements, and there's five things on the list, and storage solution A does two of the five. And you've got another one storage vendor B has five out of five. Are you really gonna buy two solutions if one has a specialty feature? Because maybe one does one better/is more performant? Or are you gonna buy the one that does five and handle everything. We had a very long list of complicated protocols and setups and NetApp checked every single box.

The main service of those devices is for use at our offshore platforms and that's where they'll be heading. We have a lot of data offshore, seismic data, and it needs to be stored in a reliable system. The main use case is to store the core business data from the platform at our offshore site, so that it is safe.

In general, NetApp AFF helps simplify data management across SAN environments. We have several solutions within our company and we are converging all the data from those solutions into NetApp by mounting volumes and LUNs in our SAN environment. It allows us to concentrate all the data reliably in one platform. It also gives us a single pane of glass so that we can manage all the data properly. We can visualize and get a holistic view of what we have and how secure the data is. We have the bigger picture. It gives us a lot of flexibility when it comes to better management and using it has been an awesome experience.

Because it gives us a single pane of glass, it helps us to analyze the system itself and gives us a realistic view of what's going on: the issues, the warnings, and the errors. As a result, we can easily prevent a lot of problems, and that is something that we couldn't do previously. It also facilitates the troubleshooting process due to the high volume of information that it gives us. It definitely helps reduce support issues. But in terms of reducing IT support costs, it's still a little too early to talk about that. We know it is going to affect things in a good way, but we don't have enough data about that yet.

The file system in NetApp makes it easy to read and write data. It actually speeds up a lot of the operations that we are performing on a daily basis. With several of our virtual machines, we have noticed that the performance has increased quite a bit. In terms of writing, reading, and storing the data, the performance of the VMs has increased significantly. We are pretty happy with that so far.

ONTAP has also simplified our operations and that means we don't need a lot of people to manage the infra. NetApp makes it so easy. We can allocate people to other projects and those people can gain new skills in other platforms, rather than just working in NetApp itself.

We wanted the replication and SnapMirror and those types of features in case an event occurs. That way, we have a proper system so that we can recover the data properly. One of the main features that we love about the system is the ability to create snapshots. NetApp makes a lot of snapshots in a short space of time.

Also, the speed of data recovery with NetApp, at the time we need it, is an important feature that we love.

The deployment itself, compared to other platforms, should be a lot easier. We don't find it all that complicated because we have been doing it for such a long time, but it should be a bit easier. They can improve that.

When it comes to the connectivity on the back end, where the hardware is concerned—the cabling and the like—it could also be simplified to ease the communication between the nodes and between the other components of the infrastructure. I still find that a little bit complicated. I know that SAN, itself, is quite complicated. It's not the same approach as the hyper-converged solutions, but there are always ways to improve. NetApp's engineers should try to tackle that so that integration between devices, including the cabling at the back, is simplified.

Another thing that could be simplified is the Service Processor setup. That is something that requires you to perform a lot of tasks before it is completed.

Also, joining clusters should be a lot easier. With one or two commands you should be able to complete that.

I have been using NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) for the last year. 

It is a very robust solution. It doesn't break easily, even when we have power failures, which is something we have in this country. NetApp gives us the resilience we need. We know we can trust NetApp.

The scalability is very good.

The documentation is crystal clear and easy to follow.

Positive

The systems we have offshore needed to be upgraded. That's why we decided to upgrade them to NetApp. It is a solution that we have used previously in some of our other companies and we know the solution is very reliable.

For file services, we used to have Synology, but that was for small projects. It's pretty tough to compare because the magnitude of what they were serving is completely different.

The initial setup is complex. It should be easier.

The initial deployment took three days, and that was working on it two or three hours a day. We got two appliances, 2750s, at the end of last year and we completed the setup about three weeks ago. We set up the volumes and the v-servers. We are currently configuring the system and, in the next month or so, the appliance will be done and it will be transferred to the new site offshore.

Our deployment included initializing all the disks, doing the network configuration setup, including the IPs, the mask, the gateways, the DNS, et cetera. Then we had to apply the licenses for all the services. Next, we had to create the volume structure. Then we could start mounting them on other devices so that we can integrate the storage itself with the rest of our system.

We have five people working on the solution.

We started doing it by ourselves and then we had to call for help from a consultant. We were completely satisfied with our experience with that consultant.

Get it, because it's reliable, stable, robust, and it serves the purpose.

We use NetApp AFF products for file storage across multiple agencies in the State of Nebraska. We are a consolidated state, so all of the agencies of our state have consolidated files on NetApp products. We use AFF as our top tier solid-state storage for application and user data storage.

Different customers will have different needs, e.g., when you're looking at somebody who just has simple file service needs, then it's very easy. That can be met with many different products. But, we also like that you can build SVMs with different network profiles, vLANs, security protocols, etc.

We like the ability to create different SVMs on AFF products because they can create different vLANs and network access points for different customers. We can actually drop virtual appliances onto any customer's network. If they have different firewall and network profiles than each other, we can keep all of the data completely separated.

We can also meet the different needs for different Snapshot and backup policies. A Department of Labor or Department of Health and Human Services will have very different needs from just standard user profile folders.

We like AFF because it has a very high reliability rate with very high performance. We are using it for top tier performance on application and virtual machine storage, as well as just being able to separate out SVMs for different security and network needs for all of our different customers across the state. 

We use the Snapshot feature to simplify backups for data protection. We set different policies that let let our agencies choose what backup policy they want to have for their Snapshots. It's very simple. Users can be given the opportunity to look at previous versions directly from the Windows interface or they can call/put in a ticket seeking support from our IT group if they need a larger system restore, because their data is protected with NetApp and replicated as well.

Stability is great. We haven't had to replace a single drive. We haven't had any issues with the AFFs or compatibility issues. We haven't had any problems at all. It has worked exactly the same as our previous system but with greater performance.

In both our traditional cluster and MetroCluster, we have been able to scale very easily. We just add additional shelves of solid-state disk. They expand the storage array so we can just increase the aggregate sizes and assign more space. It's been very simple to scale.

Tech support is great with NetApp if you can get past Tier 1. A lot of times when you open a new case or do a direct dial-in with an issue, like with any support, you will definitely reach a Tier 1 level that is not particularly helpful until you get escalated to an expert. However, the experts that I have reached have always been great.

We have several different SAN and NAS products in our environment. With the traditional spinning storage, We are running into bottlenecks with performance problems. The AFF products have given us the opportunity to move people to all-flash high performance storage tiers, which will make their virtual machines, database servers, and SQL run much better in a flash environment for us than in a hybrid or spinning disk environment.

Switching to AFF has improved the performance of a lot of our virtual machines in a VMware environment. The number of support tickets that we receive has fallen to almost zero because of this, so it's been a real help for our virtual server support team.

We have used the solution’s thin provisioning to add new applications without having to purchase additional storage. We use thin provisioning on all of our flash arrays at this point. It gives us the choice to be able to overprovision and take advantage of compression, compaction, and thin provisioning all at the same time. We can get more out of the purchases that we make.

I would like it to be a lot less expensive, but it's been a very good solution for us.

I would give it a 10 (out of 10). It's been solid. The performance is great. It has solved a lot of problems in our environment.