NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

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. 

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.

We adopted it primarily for performance and space-saving benefits.

Since it's an all-flash solution, it significantly enhances performance, and it also offers substantial space savings. 

Despite having used it for a while, our usage remains somewhat consistent, but we continue to experience cost savings, and we've seen a remarkable performance improvement compared to the days when we were reliant on traditional hard drives like SAS drives. 

It plays a crucial role in mitigating support issues, especially those related to performance tuning and troubleshooting. One of the notable aspects is how it seamlessly communicates with ActiveIQ, both online and on the website, providing valuable insights into security vulnerabilities and other pertinent information. 

It has significantly contributed to cost savings. In the past, we would spend around a hundred thousand dollars for a NetApp system, but now our expenses have reduced to sometimes just thirty or forty thousand dollars, depending on our specific needs. 

Additionally, the physical footprint is much smaller, leading to cost savings in terms of rack space within the data center, as well as reduced power consumption and related expenses.

There are two compression technologies available within it, and they are valuable because they allow for significantly higher data storage capacity and the retention of a larger number of snapshots on the system. This is crucial because it enables organizations to avoid the need to invest in additional costly storage. 

Given the high cost of storage, having these compression technologies in place ensures efficient data deduplication and other storage optimization techniques, allowing for the retention of a substantial amount of data on the system.

To enhance the already excellent administration, one area for potential improvement could be in terms of integration.

I have been using it for seven years now.

The stability is impeccable, scoring a perfect ten out of ten.

The scalability capabilities deserve a perfect score of ten out of ten.

I would rate its support services eight out of ten.

Positive

Various other departments within our organization have their own storage solutions, so we had EMC Xtremio and EMC Xtremio in use. Additionally, we've implemented Pure Storage for a separate area of our operations.

The initial setup was quite straightforward, and we had an engineer who handled most of it. It was impressively easy and hassle-free.

I find the pricing to be reasonable, particularly with the recent inclusion of features like snap locking and ransomware protection within the ONTAP license instead of having them as separate licenses.

When I first joined the company twenty-three years ago, they evaluated various storage solutions before ultimately selecting NetApp. The key factor that led to this choice was NetApp's snapshot technologies.

The system has proven to be incredibly reliable and dependable. For smaller organizations seeking high-performance, straightforward management, and cost-effective solutions, I would recommend considering AFF. I would rate it ten out of ten.

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. 

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.

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. 

We use the solution mostly for virtual workloads, VMware, databases, and also the VDI infrastructure.

We can provide all the SLA performance-wise and high availability to the business. We are trying to maintain compliance with all business SLAs.

The ONTAP cluster, the scale-out, and the architecture are great.

We are a large-scale company, and our growth has been pretty significant over the last five or six years. We like the scale, and the way NetApp grows, so that's why we use it. It's mostly for block storage.

NetApp data helped to reduce our operational latency to some extent. We've saved maybe 20%.

We have not been affected by ransomware since using the solution. 

The NetApp support could be better. NetApp can improve a lot on hardware upgrades and proactive support.

In the past, AFF has helped optimize our costs. However, not anymore since NetApp has increased its prices. The optimization we had previously is not the case anymore.

Recently, we have had some support issues that we definitely have some concerns with.

I've been using the solution for eight to ten years. 

The stability is good. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. We are in a large enterprise, so that fits our requirements. There is about 30 to 35 petabytes of data and a block size of close to 25 to 30 petabytes of data.

Technical support could be better and should be more proactive. 

We've also had some production outages. Due to one upgrade, for example, there was a significant outage.

Neutral

I'm also familiar with Dell EMC.

We've used PowerMax, and we have used StorageGRID. 

We use AFF as this is the main environment for our corporate environment.

NetApp has been in the environment for quite some time, so we have built that comfort level with the product. 

I was involved with the initial deployment of the solution. The setup was complex on our end. Our internal processes are difficult as we have such an extensive environment. For example, we must go to security and do all the reviews and assessments. It's our internal program. There's nothing on NetApp.

We worked directly with a third party on the deployment and with NetApp. Overall, the experience was okay.

The pricing has definitely increased significantly as compared to other competitors.

I have not used NetApp BlueXP.

We are looking into FSx ONTAP. We are trying to do the pilot program on FSx ONTAP, and we will probably use that in the cloud in AWS.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've only really had some support issues and some issues around performance sometimes. 

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.