NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

AFF has simplified our infrastructure and delivered high performance for crucial business applications. Our move to c-series, with C800 units, consolidates infrastructure, aligns with sustainability goals, and lowers costs. This has allowed us to operate with a smaller team and streamline our IT operations, bringing significant benefits. 

AFS has also reduced support issues related to performance tuning and troubleshooting. 

Additionally, AFF has optimized our costs, and it is the reason we are using this platform today. It has minimized our footprint, lowered power consumption, and reduced upfront costs and it has reduced operational latency to some extent.

The most valuable feature of AFF is that it offers better visibility and control over performance, ensuring it meets customer needs effectively.

One minor improvement could be making scale-up solutions with AFF more cost-effective compared to scale-out options.

We have been using NetApp AFF for quite some time.

AFF's stability is excellent, and I can't remember any major issues. It is also scalable, particularly when we expand our clusters, making it a smooth and seamless experience for our customers.

NetApp's support has been great. We have found value in their SAN services, which provide embedded support. Their teams are knowledgeable and responsive, offering a high-quality support experience that stands out among our partners. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

We switched to AFF from a previous vendor to get the best all-flash solution that met our price-performance needs.

AFF has helped us achieve our margin targets and deliver on our business goals. It has definitely provided a return on investment.

Pricing and licensing can be tricky. It is often a delicate balance between value and cost. However, I think NetApp is moving in the right direction, offering better value for the money.

We implemented AFF to find the right balance between price and performance. We compared it with other options in the market, and AFF emerged as the best choice for our needs. What set AFF apart were its reliability and strong data protection features. Our VDI solution provided multi-site configuration support, which is crucial for replication and failover. In comparison, other options relied more on software and hypervisor layers to achieve what we needed. AFF met our platform requirements, and in a competitive market, it offered the best value for our customers. That is why our partnership with NetApp was the right choice for us.

Overall, I would rate NetApp AFF as an eight out of ten.

We use it mostly for user file data. We are also providing data stores for our VMware platform.

It helps simplify data management with unified data services across SAN and NAS environments. It has also simplified our infrastructure, while still giving us high performance for business-critical applications, and that was mostly due to the arrival of cluster ONTAP. Things really got a lot easier with that.

It also helps to accelerate databases in our environment. First of all, there is the reliability of things staying online and the small response time as well, from the MetroCluster, for all of the data that we're serving; and the applications are talking to the MetroCluster. It provides a very fast response time.

The typical snapshots are one of the benefits. Also, in addition to the NetApp MetroCluster, we also have two eight-node HA clusters. And the solution makes our work easier.

NetApp AFF has also helped to reduce support issues such as performance tuning and troubleshooting, and that's true even though we are quite self-sufficient in our knowledge of our clusters and of NetApp in general.

There is room for improvement with the user interface. There are a few things that cannot be done in the GUI. We do a lot of things through the CLI, but that's grown out of a lack of ability to do them in the GUI. An example is QTrees. You can manage them within the GUI, but the GUI is missing a few options. Also, the graphical design of the GUI for that part doesn't fit the windows on your screen.

I have been using NetApp AFF for about eight years.

The reliability is one of the most important elements. Since we went to cluster ONTAP, we have really found it to be reliable. Previously, we were running NetApp with a lot of 7-Mode systems. The transition to cluster ONTAP wasn't easy, but in the end, it's way more reliable. What we love about the MetroCluster is that we do not have to worry about data being on one site. The reliability is one of its best features.

The only issue we had, once, was when we moved to another data center, but that was not NetApp's fault.

Scalability of the solution is great, but expensive.

We always get what we need from their technical support, but what I find annoying is that you always have to go through all the various levels of support. That has definitely improved, but you always have to go through the front end, explaining what your environment looks like and what the impact of the issue is. But that's the only complaint I have about the support.

It would help if they had a customer profile and could look it up and. When I create a case, I try to put in as much information as I can, but it's not always read. I get a standard email back from NetApp that says, "What does your environment look like?" even when I have put all of the information in the case, upfront.

Positive

We used two separate 7-Mode clusters and we SnapMirrored the data to the other side. We moved to NetApp AFF because of the speed and because solid-state disks were the new technology at the time.

The initial setup and deployment of NetApp AFF is pretty straightforward. A lot of terms that were used in 7-Mode became easier and were more clearly stated when we transitioned to cluster ONTAP.

Our transition lasted a year or so. We had a lot of data to move. We used the 7-Mode transition tool. My entire team of six people was involved.

The pricing is pretty reasonable for what we get. But if you have to buy any more disk space, it can be quite expensive. We had some internal discussions with people who wanted to store a lot of graphical data and we gave them the pricing for that and they were really horrified about the pricing of a single shelf.

We did not look at any other vendors.

With the all-new cloud availability, it's really important to think about the necessity of having your data doubled up over two data centers. With the cloud becoming more pervasive, the entire government is thinking of dropping physical data centers and going to managed, private cloud. My advice would be to think through whether you really need the functionalities of a MetroCluster. I like them a lot, but cost-wise, the cloud could be a great option.

We are mostly using it for ESX, i.e., a mix of both CIFS and NFS shares, and NAS purposes. 

We have a team of four core NetApp trained people from the storage team who are managing NetApp. Two of them are in the learning stage, and I am one of them. 

Performance-wise, NetApp is very good. 

The NetApp FlexVol feature is helpful because we can copy large amounts of data in minutes as well as include data quickly. That is definitely one of its plus points as well as it being all-flash. 

It simplifies data management for NAS environments with its ease of management, ease of share creation, and Active IQ feature. These features are good overall. It helps us manage data quickly and sufficiently. Also, compression features, like dedupe, give us a good ratio.

We are using ONTAP 9, which has simplified our operations.

There is room for improvement in terms of support. I have noticed that if I sometimes call their customer care for a particular issue, they will give me another number and ask me to call that other team. It would be better if they could do a warm transfer. That would save customers time from calling all the numbers again and speaking to another team. 

I have been using NetApp AFF for almost two years.

Stability has been pretty good.

There has been a lot of improvement on drive failures after the patch. Now, drive failures are negligible, which is a plus point. 

Previously, there were SAP instances where we used to have a lot of issues, such as performance issues, P1, etc. However, with NetApp, those have been almost negligible.

We can extend the solution, per our wishes, which is also good. The environment for this solution is about eight to 10 petabytes. 

The solution has been widely accepted by our management. 

I would rate their technical support as nine out of 10. Sometimes, it depends on to whom I am speaking. However, most of the time, technical support has been very good, apart from one or two negligible instances.

Positive

We were using a different vendor for virtualization, then we switched to NetApp. The feedback from the VMware team is that things have improved. 

We were using Oracle Veritas previously. Sometimes, their technical support was not that user-friendly. While the hardware was good, it needs to be good going end-to-end. So, if we had an issue, then they were not as helpful, technical support-wise, as we have seen from NetApp. Apart from that, the features that NetApp provides overall are better than what Oracle used to provide.

I have worked on HPE products, but that has primarily been on 3PAR, which is mostly for SAN protocols.

I was not a part of the initial setup.

The data rate is faster because there are no spindles on it.

We are using Commvault for backup purposes.

If you are looking for long-term stability, performance improvement, and data compression, NetApp is the answer.

There are a few sites where our other vendors' contracts are running out. Most of those are getting replaced with NetApp. That is definitely in the pipeline.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. I am holding back one point for future improvements.

We utilize NetApp AFF to deliver data to our users per our server and application requirements. My primary responsibilities lie within the data center, where I configure and manage user access.

The challenges we faced before implementing NetApp AFF were connection connectivity in our network, installations with current software, and upgrades.

NetApp AFF simplifies our infrastructure while maintaining high performance. However, some applications require high I/O and performance, so we primarily use NetApp AFF for our critical business applications. For less demanding applications, we employ alternative cost-effective solutions.

The simplified infrastructure offered by NetApp AFF has been beneficial. Previously, we were using a different product that caused performance issues, particularly in terms of disk resources. Since switching to NetApp, we have experienced significant improvements.

NetApp AFF has helped reduce support issues. Our performance is now stable, using fewer resources, and there is no longer a queue of users waiting to log in. NetApp AFF has made a big difference.

It also reduced our operational latency by almost 40 percent with fewer issues and less downtime.

NetApp AFF has helped optimize our costs. It was a 15 to 20 percent difference from what we see now.

The most valuable aspect of NetApp AFF is the money it saves our organization.

The support documentation has room for improvement.

I believe offering a SaaS-based option for NetApp AFF would be a valuable addition, as cloud adoption continues to accelerate.

I have been using NetApp AFF for almost four years.

Up to now the stability of NetApp AFF has been perfect.

It is easy to scale NetApp AFF.

We have instant support which is good. 

Positive

We migrated from Dell to NetApp AFF because of its better performance with our business-critical applications.

The initial setup is straightforward. We connect to the external screen and enter the basic admin information before we can start the deployment.

Adopting NetApp AFF has yielded a significant return on investment. It boasts a comprehensive suite of features that surpass those of other storage box solutions. These features include data protection, multi-sharing storage, regular snapshot retention, SSDs, and customized flash-based storage.

Before choosing NetApp AFF our architect evaluated many options including Dell.

I would rate NetApp AFF nine out of ten.

NetApp AFF is the best flash storage solution and I fully recommend it. 

I use NetApp AFF in our cloud service infrastructure to provide data storage and management for our customers. 

NetApp AFF has indeed improved our growing organization by providing stability and efficient IT maintenance. We have also found the product's quality to be excellent. 

The most valuable feature of NetApp AFF for us is its ability to manage multiple IP spaces for our customers in a shared environment. This is important because we offer VPN services, and this feature helps keep customer data separate and secure while ensuring our services work smoothly over the long term.

In terms of improvement, IO performance could use some enhancement. Additionally, I would like to see additional security-related features in NetApp AFF, particularly in the realm of ransomware protection.

I have been working with NetApp AFF for seven years.

It is highly stable.

NetApp AFF is fairly scalable.

I would rate the support for NetApp AFF as average. It has been a mixed experience, with some good interactions and others not meeting our expectations.

We have used different storage solutions like EMC, HP, and others before making the switch to NetApp AFF.

The deployment of NetApp AFF was a bit complex, mainly due to the extensive functionality it offers. 

NetApp AFF has helped reduce support issues related to performance tuning and troubleshooting. It has helped reduce operational costs and has proven to be cost-effective for our organization compared to other storage equipment from different vendors. It has also helped reduce our operational latency. Overall, I would rate NetApp AFF as a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for virtualization. We run VMware on it.

Before running AFF we ran regular SAS Disk Arrays. NetApp AFF greatly improved the performance.

The speed is great. That's probably number one in terms of features we appreciate.

The throughput is excellent.

It's useful for running production databases on.

NetApp AFF has reduced our operational latency. It has close to doubled it.

The setup process could be easier. 

I used NetApp AFF for six years.

I never had any major outages or issues with the platform.

Scaling is easy enough. Users can just throw another shelf in. It's easy to add hardware. 

Support is good. I've never had any issues long term.

Positive

We've used Dell EMC in the past, and we use Pure now. 

Pure is easier to manage just from an interface perspective, however, I would say the performance of both is close to equal. We chose AFF primarily for the level of performance. That said, the team that works for me has more experience with Pure. The issue we have is that the footprint is way smaller.

I was involved in the initial deployment of AFF. I've done it quite a few times and I find the process to be straightforward.

The deployment could be easier. Pure setup is way easier in comparison but I had no problem setting AFF up. 

The initial setup has a lot more steps in it than are probably necessary for a base deployment, unlike other vendors where it's more straightforward. It could be a little bit more streamlined.

I handled the deployment myself. 

We haven't quite witnessed an ROI. Eventually, it becomes cheaper as we go along instead of going all cloud, however, in the end, it's probably pretty close to equal.

They sped everything up initially. However, are there other products that have a better ROI? Maybe. Pure probably has a better ROI overall and especially when you start talking about Pure Evergreen and the way that they do their maintenance. That's a big difference that helps a little bit with the cost long term.

The pricing is  pretty in line with industry standards.

We did not evaluate other storage issues. 

We are a NetApp customer.

So far, the solution has not optimized our costs. 

Since using the solution, we have not been hit by ransomware. 

We do not use any other NetApp cloud solutions together with AFF.

In terms of rating the product by itself, I would give it a nine out of ten due to some of the usability differences that I know now. Overall, against other vendors, I would probably rate it eight out of ten based on the footprint size and some of the longer-term support features.

We primarily use the solution for databases, including Oracle, SQL, PostgreSQL, and VMware. 

We're moving some data warehouses over as well as our main financial system.

The NVMe flash cache is the most useful feature. It lowers transactional speed even more.

We have found the ease of use to be excellent. Everybody's got expertise in it.

AFF helped reduce our operational latency. Since we started using it, we've improved by 20%.

AFF has helped us optimize our costs. We partnered with StorageGRID on that, and so we tier our data with StorageGRID and use AFF for the hot data, and then we tier it off to StorageGRID, which is really helping with that.

I do not have any notes for areas of improvement. 

There's a lag with StorageGRID. It's off of this tier-three disc. After a few days, we sluff it off to StorageGRID, and then if all of a sudden, they need to restore that data, it takes a while to spin it back up and write it back to that. What would be great is if they could actually make StorageGRID so that it's pretty fast and has a fast recall. That being said, that's a recovery issue. 

In the past, NetApp designed it so that you have a 70% threshold. You would never fill up past 70% since you need to have that room available. Whereas with Pure, I can fill it up to 110% of what they listed and it's still going at full speed. NetApp can't do that. They need to build in more capacity to ensure users don't lose 30% of a buffer off the top. 

I've been using the solution for six years. 

The stability is fantastic. They're really coming as close to a high availability system as you can get.

In the past, with the controller failover, you'd have to rely on the other controller. It was a little bit hit or miss. AFF has really stepped it up to where I'm not lagging on performance when it fails over if it's an upgrade, update, or something like that. I don't have to worry as much about controller failure anymore.

Scalability is great. It's just expensive. That's why we would go with StorageGRID. Due to supply chain issues, I already know that these flash drives are so expensive. We're paying through the roof for those drives even on a discount. Therefore, while scalability's great, we can't really afford it. I can't go and buy a $4 million system. 

Technical support is pretty good. It is hit or miss. For the most part, it's good.

The main complaints I get from the engineers are that they'll just say, "it's a future release, and that future release is just too far down the road, and we need to get that done right away." Whereas we see a pain point now, and we would like to see them fix our problems right now. That said, we understand we're not the biggest customer on planet earth. 

Neutral

Before AFF, we used Hitachi. We switched to simplify from the fiber channel over to NAS. We were looking to simplify and make the network the cost point instead of having fibre channel expertise and network expertise.

I was not involved in the initial setup of the solution. 

We've probably optimized our costs by 70%.

We have seen ROI in terms of less latency on applications and users being able to get more done more quickly. The experience is really good with StorageGRID unless you're doing restores, and then they've got to restore that data. That's the only thing that's lagging. That said, the return on investment has been great since the DBAs and the other customers get more done and get more cycles accomplished with that enhanced IOP performance.

The pricing is palatable; we can swallow it. We're a longtime customer and we view our relationship as a partnership, not just a one-time deal. They have taken good care of us.

We looked at Dell, Pure, and EMC, among other options. 

I like Pure. Pure has very low-cost copies of point-in-time databases that they can spin up immediately, and the developers, the database administrators, can have that hanging off the same disc at a low cost. It's just built off of the existing data, and I haven't seen NetApp come up with anything like that yet.

The Snapshotting, SnapMirror, SnapVault technologies, and just having all of those technologies, are really nice so that we can get a copy, SnapMirror, for example, in the data center, and we can have that spun up really quick. That's NetApp's technology and that's the advantage there.

I have not used BlueX, their cloud management aspect.

We haven't seen any ransomware attacks. Security's pretty closed off. They're not going to tell us if something happens, so it's hard to gain visibility. We'll just know that we've got to do a restore or something. That said, we haven't lost anything.

We do not use any other NetApp cloud services. We just use StorageGRID and the AFF right now. FSX looks intriguing. We'd be willing to test it in the future. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's a good product.

It's used for SAN environments and a lot of VMware utilization.

For our customers, the main benefit is the performance they get with NetApp AFF. We have a lot of feedback from customers about how their applications work faster and that they are very happy with it.

We deploy it a lot for VMware environments and, with VMware, we have nearly all the client's applications. We can have 500 or 1,000 virtual machines on the AFF. Sometimes they tell us that a compute application that, with earlier generations of storage solutions, took hours or days, takes much less time with AFF. For some customers, it takes three or four or five times less, with the new AFF.

Using NetApp AFF has also helped to reduce support issues. It's very stable and we don't have a lot of issues with it. I can talk a lot about this aspect because sometimes we provide support for NetApp. We have certification for level-one and level-two NetApp support. We only escalate the L3 support to NetApp. It's a very good technology with very few bugs.

In addition, the ONTAP data management software has simplified our clients' operations. NetApp is simple to manage. You can grow and reduce the capacity, and you can create a backup copy through replication with SnapMirror and SnapVault. There are a lot of features in NetApp and they are simple to implement.

The most valuable features are 

• performance
• storage efficiency, due to the compression and deduplication.

We use StorageGrid in two ways. The first usage is stand-alone to provide S3 object storage. And the second use case is to use FabricPool, the NetApp technology that moves a snapshot from the AFF to AWS. It's a very good solution because AFF is SSD technology, meaning the storage is expensive. It's very helpful to have the ability to move cold data, like a snapshot, out of the SSD.

We have an S3 protocol with the AFF, but there are a lot of limitations. The new ONTAP version has S3, but we can only do a very small volume.

Another issue is that for smaller customers, NetApp doesn't have enough disk sizes. You begin with a 980-gigabyte disk and the next size is 3.8 terabytes. There aren't any disk sizes in between. Competitors have more choices in disk sizes.

I have been using NetApp AFF since the beginning. I have worked with NetApp for more than 10 years.

We are a distributor, so we install a lot of storage for many customers. I have worked with all the models, including the AFF C190 and C220, the FAS8020 and 8040, the AFF A300, the AFF 700, and the biggest was an AFF A900.

The stability is very nice. I've worked with NetApp for a long time and the stability has been excellent.

We can very easily add volume with new disks and we can add more compute with more controllers. And we can refresh and upgrade hardware very easily. We do that very often and customers are very happy with this aspect.

NetApp support is very good if you have a very serious disaster, such as a service interruption. You can ask for help from L1, L2, or L3 and get someone connected with you. But when you have a less important issue, such as a bug or a feature not working as you want, but you don't have a service interruption, the support is very slow.

Positive

The initial deployment of NetApp AFF is easy. We can deploy it in a very small amount of time. The NetApp is pre-configured so you just have to run the setup, with some workloads that are already ready. In a few hours you can have production running on it. And for customers, it's very easy to learn how to use it.

The implementation strategy for each environment is always a little different, but the main architecture is very similar. We always do a workshop with the customer, at the start of a project, and we design it for their specific requirements, but overall, the architecture is always similar.

We have a specific service for the maintenance of NetApp, and that team has six people, but they maintain all our NetApp installations, not only AFF.

Our clients see return on their investment in AFF, due to the stability and efficiency. The efficiency is very important because we can buy fewer disks for more data.

The list price of AFF is too expensive. But we have a good connection with NetApp and we can get a very big rebate and that makes the price similar to the competitors' pricing. But I would tell NetApp that they need to be careful with the pricing of the new NVMe disks. They are way too expensive.

We use AFF a lot in MetroCluster architecture, with synchronous replication between two data centers. In this scenario NetApp has some very hard requirements, like a specific switch that is mandatory. Its competitors don't have all these requirements. So sometimes it's very difficult to win projects as a result.

But on the positive side, NetApp is very performant, very stable, and easy to manage. And when it comes to support for both file services and block services, NetApp is definitely better. We tried some of the competitors' solutions and with them it's not so easy. The NAS protocol is very good in NetApp.

Try it. It's a good solution. In a MetroCluster environment, I think it's the best solution on the market today, with flash technology. You can have flash and synchronous write between two data centers.

A lot of customers use NetApp with NAS and SAN. It's not a key point, but it's a good feature.