NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

Our primary use case is running NFS exports for our local on-premises VMware and our CIFS for local shares.

I like the ability to snapshot, and the cloning features are valuable to us as well. I like that I can quickly and efficiently snapshot the data and move it to wherever I need to locally or in the cloud. Also, I know that when I take the snapshot that all of the data will be there and that it will be usable when I need to use it.

The reliability of NetAPP AFF is another valuable feature.

Blue XP has made it a single pane of glass so that we can see both on-premises and the cloud. We don't have to worry about going back and forth. It has made everything seamless in terms of the look and feel for the admins.

We use other NetApp Cloud Services solutions such as FSx, Cloud Volumes ONTAP, BlueXP, and Cloud Manager. We're just starting to dip our toes into FSxN. We run all of our student services, our general ledger, and all of our classroom-related items off of CVOs. It has been very reliable for us.

We've been using NetApp AFF since 2019.

We have been running NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) since 2019, and we've not had one unplanned outage since then. It's been a reliable workhorse for us.

We've had to upgrade our available storage three times, and it was all seamless. There is a cost every time, but there hasn't been an outage. It's been quick and seamless, and we haven't had any issues with scalability.

We have 8,000 undergraduate students and 2,000 graduate students, and we facilitate another 5,000 university staff. We run all of our campus-wide phone systems and CIFS on it, along with our local VMware environment. We have about 10,000 to 15,000 people relying on NetApp AFF every day.

Whenever we have a problem, the technical support staff usually contact us before we contact them. We've never had an issue with technical support, so I'd give them a rating of ten out of ten.

Positive

As far as a return on investment, it's freed up a lot of our time so that we do not have to worry about the little things that usually take up the majority of our day. Our time can be spent in other areas, whether that's helping with other products, developing new ones, or helping end users.

It can get a little expensive if you need to add more disks. The cost is a pain point for us, especially in terms of expansion.

Overall, I would rate NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) at ten on a scale from one to ten.

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.

NetApp has increased our speed. It can speed up our production and save us time. Our production runs on NetApp, and the data cannot be disturbed. It gives us the capacity and speed we need for our production data. 

NetApp's new technology will improve our skills, which we can use to improve the company. We will have the architecture to deal with production issues and improve our production environment, enabling us to make more money. For example, adding AI technology will significantly enhance our operations because AI can perform traditional maintenance and routine jobs.

Our investment priority should be security because we're still growing on a straight path. The second one should be a true cluster. NetApp's cluster is still not an actual cluster. Then we'll have a perfect product.

I like NetApp's edge visualization and load balancing. 

NetApp could lower the price and offer a true cluster architecture. It's currently a 1.4 cluster, not a real 2.0 cluster.

I rate NetApp solutions eight out of 10. 

NetApp solutions are easy to maintain and upgrade. 

NetApp allows us to provide more and faster connections for our users and simplifies future hardware replacement. That's why we purchased NetApp. 

Innovation is probably the most critical factor. We wanted the ability to refresh hardware. Our biggest pain point was running out of space on our current NAS. It was approaching the end of its life, so we needed to find a new solution to replace our existing hardware. 

Our future expansion into NetApp will probably be going from HCI back to just SAN solutions. Data storage solutions and cybersecurity are our investment priorities. 

We looked at Dell's PowerScale and Pure Storage's FlashBlade. The decision came down to the cost relative to the number of connections we could have and the amount of storage we could get. The NetApp solution was all-flash, so it was also faster in most cases. One solution was spinning disk, and it just got thrown out. 

I rate NetApp solutions nine out of 10. 

We have Cloud Volumes on top of our RDR instance and SnapMirror from on-prem to that.

We use AFF to replicate the data from our on-premises data center to the cloud.

The changes to the forms of our databases have been the most valuable aspect. We have a large healthcare information exchange in New York. It has better efficiency and good performance of larger systems. It's really noticeable.  

It has served to process data, serve our clients, and keep the systems up reasonably well. I'm trying to have data protection with everything incorporated into the systems in the environment.

It has good scalability and keeps the systems stable, performing, and running well. We have a lot of data. We're continuously testing a lot of data. We're expanding and growing. It makes sure that we can have everything running, keep uptime, and have everything protected and secure. It makes sure the data is relevant rather than being out of sync.

We leverage many features that NetApp has provided, like FlexPoint, to rapidly build systems. The performance is noticeable.  

AFF has helped to reduce our operational latency. Latency hasn't been too much of an issue, especially for large, higher-performing systems. We migrate most of our production to AFF. 

NetApp AFF helped reduce support issues such as performance tuning and troubleshooting combined with Active IQ; those things have made it. We don't have many issues with the AFF systems.

All of the features are good. With Flash, we have high-performing databases. Having that kind of performance has been valuable.

Moreover, the simplified infrastructure has become easier to manage. We have a small team, so it's made it less difficult to keep things going. 

It's very intuitive to work with, and all the seamless tools and applications come together. Our team isn't big, so it's more manageable.

It's more about protecting data backups because the cache databases we use don't have any native controls like queuing for snapshots and stuff like that. 

We're working on trying to improve this with Ansible. More Ansible integration is the key right now. We would like to have more automation with Ansible and better ways to protect the data because we have application encryption. We need more leverage and native encryption tools that NetApp provides.

We have had this solution for three years. 

It's pretty stable. Our issue is growth. In terms of stability, it's very dependable. 

It is scalable. 

Generally, the support team is spot on, and helps us out a lot. The issues are few and far between. 

Generally, if we have issues, they're really specific, like Cloud Volume issues, replication, or tweaking because of our growth and data. 

Positive

There's an incentive to keep the uptime. Having it on high-performing hardware has improved and kept things going. There are fewer issues and we have higher processing.

NetApp has been the leading goal standard of technology in terms of storage. There was never an option of exploring any other technologies.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are still going through some challenges because of application encryption. Challenges would be duplication and things like that.

NetApp AFF handles tier-one workloads, including home drives, departmental shares, group shares, and application shares.

The product has size limitations on fax volume. They have increased from 100 to 300, which is still less than other vendors. Or flex groups are not supported. 

I have been working with NetApp AFF for five years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The tool offers good support. 

Positive

We chose NetApp AFF because it has advantages over other file platform vendors. 

NetApp AFF's deployment is easy. The tool's representatives were very helpful. 

The tool's pricing is neither expensive nor cheap. It is cheaper compared to other platforms. 

We had no challenges since we constantly refreshed NetApp AFF technology. 

We are working with NetApp AFF and Amazon representatives to move our workloads to AWS. 

We have fewer issues with the product compared to other file platforms. 

The tool has reduced operational costs by 60-70 percent. 

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

NetApp AFF supports multi-tenant and private clouds.

With our previous spinning disk storage, we did have some "disk busy" problems. Since switching to NetApp AFF, we haven't had any issues. It has simplified the deployment of ONTAP because it's all the same interface. It's also easier to train people on ONTAP because they don't need to learn multiple interfaces. Switching from spinning disk storage to NetApp AFF has significantly reduced our operational latency. 

The biggest benefit of NetApp AFF is the performance. 

I have used NetApp AFF for around 10 years.

NetApp AFF is great. We haven't had any storage outages in 10 to 12 years. 

I rate NetApp support eight out of 10. We always get an answer quickly, and they seem to be knowledgeable about the product. The response to basic problems could be faster. They usually respond fast when there are critical issues, but you always want it right now.

Positive

The setup is pretty simple. You put an IP on the box, log into a web interface, and it basically sets itself up. It requires a bit of customization for your environment, but it prompts you, so it isn't difficult. It takes 10 to 20 minutes.

I rate NetApp AFF eight out of 10. 

The solution is primarily used for various functionality. We separate storage from other companies. 

I like the FlexClone feature.

The CLI, the Power Shell, for NetApp is very good. You can do everything from the Command Line.

Storage is very reliable. You don't have to do much maintenance. 

It is stable.

It is very limited in terms of storage. You can grow storage only ten times more. You have a limit in terms of how much you can expand storage. It sounds like a lot. However, over the years, as you grow, it may be smaller than you think. You really need to plan for the future. I'm not sure if this is being fixed or not. 

The solution is expensive. 

I've used the solution for eight years.

The solution is very stable. I'd rate the stability ten out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't freeze. Once or twice we did have a crash. However, it rarely is disrupted. We were able to recover everything. 

The scalability is limited. You need to really plan for what you need. If you have it for a long time, you can run into issues if you need to extend beyond your means. It can be very difficult to expand. 

Generally, if you size properly, you can buy more shells.

It is very expensive to grow. 

We have about 60 people using the solution. 

We only opened one serious case with NetApp. Typically, we have another company that troubleshoots for us. They would be the ones that would open a ticket.

I used to use Dell PowerStore. It is very simple to set up. It's better for medium-sized companies that are pretty straightforward. 

We previously used HP around 16 or 17 years ago. I cannot recall why we switched to NetApp.

The initial setup has a moderate amount of difficulty. Dell PowerSTore is easier to set up. This is not difficult. However, it's not too complex. You just need to do more work in order to properly use the solution.

I cannot recall what the deployment process was, as it was a long time ago. The last time we did a deployment, it took two weeks. It was a special installation, and we have less storage capacity than expected, which caused issues. We had to install it twice. 

We only require minimal staff for deployment and maintenance. There isn't too much maintenance as you just configure it how you want and you leave it. Typically, the product is very reliable so it doesn't require attention.

We had a company that helped us implement the solution and handle any troubleshooting. 

We have witnessed an ROI. It is worth the price we pay for it. 

The solution is expensive. It is a perpetual license. You do not have to pay for it monthly or yearly. 

This is the latest version of the solution.

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

I would advise those who want to use the solution to make sure they have a good budget. If they need to manage many environments, it's a very, very good option. It's great for enterprises.