NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Reviews

The primary use case is for a transition off of our on-premises ONTAP and secondarily to add functionality as we migrate.

The ability to do a straight SnapMirror from our on-prem to the cloud with no other data transitions is excellent.

The simplicity of cloud.netapp.com has been helpful. The fact that you're managing your on-prem and cloud and Snapshots all through one UI makes it very easy.

We currently run ONTAP across multiple physical data centers, and our file services are critical for our firm. The ability to migrate and keep the status quo of protection of data and ease of management are the biggest benefits.

This meets our hybrid or multi-cloud business needs since it fits right in. We decided to go with hybrid cloud and multi-cloud. We wanted to continue working with the same vendors that we did in our physical data center. We've invested time, energy, and staff training to build those relationships. Carrying them to the cloud with little friction is critical.

We've been dealing with general pre-requisite infrastructure configuration challenges. Once those are out of the way, it is easy.

We've been reviewing and testing the solution for three months. 

So far, the product is as stable as anything else in the cloud. It's up to us to make sure if we need a high availability to put it in. Other than that, standard nodes allow for faster and easier deployments for lower critical environments. Stability-wise, the product has been fine.

Our global footprint is, with reduction, about 300 terabytes. 

I haven't attempted any scaling yet.

Technical support is as good as any other enterprise support. Luckily, we haven't had a call yet, so I can't really evaluate it properly.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Once you understand the prerequisites, the deployment from your cloud.netapp account is straightforward.

We work closely with our local SE that is assigned to our account. He brings in his cloud support team as needed for any questions and evaluations.

I haven't gotten deep into pricing. I can't speak to costs. 

We were looking at a few solutions, including AWS FSx for Windows. FSx for Windows, at the end of the day, was a step back from the abilities for file shares for us. We would be stepping back to a Windows-based file server versus NetApp Snapshot, SnapMirror, and global replication of functions. The other option was a complete platform shift, which would've been more of a migration platform than we were willing to commit to.

We're evaluating FSx for ONTAP as well. If that looks attractive, we will transition some workloads to that as well. Potentially, in the future, we could use Cloud Insights as the other NetApp product.

We haven't done any migration yet; we're in production. That said, the whole point is to have the ability to just extend our existing NetApp and valve structure straight to the cloud.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It serves all of our needs. I have not known the product over a long enough period of time to just rate it at a perfect ten out of ten.

The main use case of ONTAP is for users to utilize SharePoint. From there, they need to access data where there are specific applications as well as an individual shared folder.

It is being used for application purposes as well as for individual user purposes.

We are using the latest version.

This isn't an isolated solution. We must have NetApp to support our faster access on a file protocol. We found the same solution on Azure is just as helpful when compared to the on-premise solution.

The solution provides us unified storage, no matter what kind of data we have. If we take a normal storage account in the public cloud, then it may not be active in terms of identity level. However, using NetApp, we can leverage the identity management control integrating with our AD. From there, we can gain the computer user's access and maintain the user side entity for who is accessing what.

On-premises, we are using the same NetApp. We find the solution in Azure to be more reliable and tailorable in NetApp with the same NetApp features because it gives us the most updated NetApp solution.

If you have a larger amount of data than normal in the cloud, it is easy to provision and maintain. Waiting for the delivery of the controller, the configuration of enclosures, etc., all this stuff is eliminated compared to using on-premise.

Eight months.

From my months' experience, I haven't seen a single point of failure within the ONTAP, except for Azure maintenance.

Scalability is a very good feature. If our data reaches 90 percent (or some threshold level), it automatically increases the storage within ONTAP without our intervention.

The solution helps us control storage costs. It is scalable. If we need more storage, then we can opt for a monthly or yearly option.

The technical support is good.

Once you register with NetApp Cloud Central, people will get in touch with you who can assist you with deploying your solution.

This is the first time that we are using this type of a solution in the cloud.

The initial setup is straightforward, but I would like NetApp to come up with an easier setup for the solution.

Deployment time depends on the client. On average, deploying the entire solution can take about a day (eight hours), if there are no issues.

For a standard storage implementation project, we need to have some shared storage for the client's application as well as the user groups and shared files that they have been using. To leverage this, we've been using this solution.

You need to go through the NetApp website and go through the documents regarding deploying ONTAP. If you experience any difficulties, there is a technical team to help you.

Some of the sales managers and other team members helped me setup the environment. They explained to me how the pay as you go and BYOL models work. If you need to the BYOL model to work, they will use some temporary licenses for a 30-day evaluation. They are there for you from beginning to end if you need assistance.

Because we went with the BYOL instead of pay as you go, we haven't seen ROI.

Using this solution, the more data that we store, the more money we can save. If you use traditional cloud providers, then you cannot manage unified lists. For that, you would need to follow a set of rules and some other stuff. You also need to have more people managing the entire environment. Whereas, NetApp provides a single point solution. 

They have a very good price which keeps our customers happy. 

Once we deploy the pay as you go model, we cannot convert this product as a BYOL model. This is a concern that we have. We would like NetApp to come up with a solution for this. For example, a customer may think, "Let's use this solution." Later, he realizes that, "This is our solution and I have this budget for the year. If we can pay upfront for one year, then we can reduced the amount we pay." This is currently not possible if we select the pay as you go model.

Your OCCM should always be the same as your ONTAP, e.g., suppose you have deployed one ONTAP, then due to some reason, you deleted it and also OCCM. Then, the next time that you want to deploy another OCCM and ONTAP, that same license won't work because the license is based on the OCCM serial ID.

We did not evaluate other solutions. We only evaluated ONTAP.

NetApp is an industry leader as well as we have experienced with NetApp on-premise. That is the reason we chose NetApp as a reliable partner.

We don't use the solution’s cloud resource performance monitoring.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

We use this primarily to consolidate our services and block services.

We are using Linux and eventually, we are going to use SnapMirror. So far, we have seen benefits from using this solution. When we started this process there were some very specific goals about log and files being stored in a single static device. This is achieved with a RAM solution. We are also able to integrate with the cloud, which is another goal we achieved. The solution has also saved us on costs, of course. We calculated that we are saving $1,000,000 across three years.

The consistency of storage management across clouds has effected our storage operations. Essentially, one of the benefits of open NetApp is that ONTAP is pretty much the operating system for any mirrored device, so it doesn't matter if it is in the cloud or on-premises, or whether you use other NetApp products, you pretty much have a safe interface with ONTAP. We like that.

One of our goals is to unify file our block file services into a single storage device. At the same time, we want to replicate on-site services to the cloud. That's also a benefit for us because that way we can move it to the cloud if we need to.

Replication to the cloud is the most valuable feature. Deduplication and compression are also very important to us. We are in the process of adopting the cloud. We are going to AWS and we are trying to do a safety technician call out with integration to the cloud. NetApp allows us to move some of the volumes to the cloud, at the same time that we continue providing the cloud services that we have on-premises.

We are in the process of doing various plans for all equipment in order to do acceptable recovery of products in the new environment.

Maybe I need more speed, but so far, I don't have any feedback for improvements.

I would like to see something from NetApp about backups. I know that NetApp offers some backup for Office 365, but I would like to see something from NetApp for more backup solutions.

The stability is great. We have been doing different scenarios about errors from controllers, to disks, and so far it is very stable. We have not had any issues. We upgraded our own version and did not have any issues there, either.

This is another issue that we like from ONTAP. There are products for different scales. It is very easy to use.

When we deployed everything, we opened a case with support for two minor issues we had with some servers. They're great. They were willing to help, easy to communicate with, and respond very quickly. They already found the issue and resolved it.

We used NetApp Cloud Manager to get up and running with Cloud Volumes ONTAP. That is how we deployed it. Their configuration wizards and ability to automate the process were very easy. The wizard is very easy to follow. There are videos, so you don't really need a lot of skill. If you understand integrations and have a basic knowledge of the cloud, you can quickly connect your equipment. It's good.

We did evaluate other solutions.  We evaluated the main players in this area, like EMC.

There are some features that we really liked from NetApp. One of them is the ability to consolidate files and blocks. Other vendors have some mirror solutions, but they are not in the maturity level that NetApp is. We also really like that NetApp has a product for the cloud that is really working and is proven and valuable. Other vendors do not have that, or if they have it, you need to deploy something in the middle. That is something that we like. We don't need to deploy anything. We can just run the backup directly from the OS and spin out the solution.

Try not to focus only on the current issues, but also look into the innovation process of NetApp. It is very impressive how they have been able to develop and continue trying to develop products for the cloud. Try to gain a deeper understanding of established needs and requirements for files and blocks.

I would rate this solution as ten out of ten.

The primary use case is storage of medical records.

The solution’s unified file and block-storage access across our infrastructure is invaluable. Without it, we can't do what we do.

The consistency of storage management across clouds affects our storage operations by making everybody go to object-based storage, which is not a bad thing. I don't care what cloud provider that you use, they all are based upon what AWS comes out with, which is their S3 object-based storage. NetApp is doing that with with StorageGRID, and that's why we have one and a half petabytes of StorageGRID now, because we have developers and they all want to use object-based storage. Everybody likes puts and gets, but I still prefer traditional NFS.

The ability to Snapshot and SnapMirror between locations is the most valuable. The solution’s Snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery works very effectively. If you want to automate it, use SnapCenter 2.0. Otherwise, do it manually. It's not that hard to do.

I suspect ONTAP will just end up being a portion that runs on StorageGRID. Ultimately, everything will be object-based, then you'll just have a little dock of ONTAP that will do your NFS and CIFS.

The on-premise NetApp is very stable. I can't speak to the cloud side.

It just works. I don't have problems with it.

It's very scalable. I even insisted when we ordered the latest ones that we get the interconnect switches. So, if we want to expand, we already have those in place.

We have used technical support. As long as they don't call me at four o'clock in the morning to tell me that a drive failed and they are sending me another one, I like it. They have a tendency to do that. 

We previously used Commvault.

I have used NetApp before at two previous companies. 

Compellent is what they already had when we acquired this other company. It would just crash constantly. It is not worth it.

It is pretty easy. It is sort of wizard based.

I have done it numerous times.

We did the last deployment ourselves.

It is reliable, and Commvault is not reliable.

Dell EMC sucks. They are not innovative. They haven't done anything in years.

NetApp is the best solution out there.

I would rate it as a 10 out of 10. I've been using the solution for a number of years. I have watched it increasingly get better, not worse.

The solution’s Snapshot copies and thin clones has affected our application development speed by speeding it up. However, we do so much through Ansible that this is really irrelevant. Theoretically, you should never care about your virtual machines. Your data should always be on NFS or CIFS exports so if a virtual machine gets messed up, you just blow it away and redeploy it. I can redeploy it faster than you can log into it and troubleshoot it, but the data's always here.

With dedupe compression, it does reduce our organizational footprint. Unfortunately, we have to hold on to everything for 20 years.

We are getting ready to use the solution’s inline encryption using SnapMirror.

We use it for the data that we are using, etc.

We have a dedicated team of 10 people who manage the storage.

For the daily activities, we needed the faster storage, faster throughpt, etc. That is why we started using SSDs in certain areas which made the application faster.

The support is its most valuable feature. They provide on-call support and responds to issues in a timely fashion It also offers disaster recovery.

AWS has come into the picture, so we want to move into AWS. Therefore, we don't want to do anything more on on-premise anymore. NetApp has to come up with a cloud version.

I would like to have more management tools. They are difficult to work with, so I would like them to be a bit more user-friendly.

More than five years.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the stability a ten.

The scalability is very good. Our environment is about 20TB.

I would rate the support as a nine out of ten. NetApp is native here in Bay Area. We are also in the Bay Area. If anything happens, they will come onsite and fix it.

There are some limitations with the integration and configuration. Though, Cluster Mode is more relatable than 7-Mode.

We purchased the product directly from NetApp.

We evaluated Hitachi and IBM, but still we are using NetApp because of its marketing.

We have not started using the cloud version. We are using the on-premise version with FlexPod.

The solution is for file sharing and networks. If we have a cluster in a network, for example, two servers needed to use a common file, NetApp is a good tool. You can spin up a network from the other cluster, so if your application is a multi-node cluster and you need a common place to share the drag with, you can use NetApp for that. 

At the time we implemented it, there wasn't any other solution. We needed a cluster, and we needed a common place where both nodes can share a file. There was not a good solution at that time besides NetApp. Now, there is. There's EFS. EFS is for Linux only. NetApp works for Windows. However, now, AWS is competing with NetApp with FSx. However, NetApp also has a feature for FSx.

The cluster needs to use a common file share, so NetApp just does that.

They provide extra security, backups, and many other features with it. 

One of the most important aspects is the flexibility to expand it. It's very scalable. 

We can easily file share with AWS. 

ONTAP is great for helping you migrate on-premise workflows to cloud environments. I would rate it a solid eight out of ten. It does what it's supposed to do. It was just expensive.

My impression of ONTAP against native AWS integrations is that FSx is much cheaper. That said, NetApp has more flexibility. Therefore, it is competitive against AWS. NetApp has an advantage in its class, and FSx has an advantage in terms of its low cost. FSx just lacks features.

In terms of ONTAP integrations with AWS native services like AWS Backup, NetApp uses AWS, so in a way, it's already backed up. If you want to provision one terabyte being backed up, they would provision ahead of time, so that way you protect your data. 

The cost needs improvement. Cost should go down. If you have a company with many servers, then the cost is down. However, if you're in a situation where you only need it for one function, then the cost can be overwhelming.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

It's pretty reliable. It's an HA solution, so even if one cluster goes down, another cluster can support everything.

The solution is extremely scalable. For example, if you initially subscribe to one terabyte, and then all of a sudden, you need two terabytes, you can dynamically expand it. You can add a feature within NetApp, and it will automatically increase it for you. You never have to worry about the space getting out of control.

Technical support is not bad. NetApp does a lot, quietly in the background. I don't even have to look for support for the most part. In most cases, when I do look for support assistance I get my questions answered. 

They could improve their response time. Once, there was an AWS outage and it took a long time to get a response. 

Neutral

We started using this solution before AWS developed its own tool called FSx. It's very similar to FSx. However, NetApp provides even more features than FSx does.

NetApp is a multi-cluster. Like FSx, the cluster is controlled by AWS itself, so you don't see that background feature. Unlike NetApp, all the deployment is in our control, so we can use that. Then there was a node feature that you can get with NetApp support in addition to the cloud support. Those are the key features. It's a little more expensive than FSx. However, there are good reasons for it.

We've been using NetApp for a while, so we'll just stick to it.

The initial setup was extremely easy. It was extremely simple to set up; it's a couple of clicks of a button, and it will then have an HA cluster for you. That's one of the good features of NetApp, the ease of setup.

I deployed the solution basically by myself.

We needed an HA solution, which we got from NetApp, so that's the only return we've received. Otherwise, we would have to go with another risky option. We do now have the option of moving over to FSx as well.

Cost-wise, ONTAP is a bit high.

We looked into FSx, which came out after implementing NetApp. We tried to use the AWS NetIQ solution with the EFS. That said, their EFS is only for Linux. There was a way to do EFS for Windows also by using Samba Share, yet that gets a little bit complicated and unreliable, so we chose NetApp at that time to keep things simple.

We have not reduced the amount of our storage with ONTAP. That was not our intention. We are not using NetApp to reduce our storage costs. We needed a reliable HA solution; that was our main goal.

We have not reduced any costs by using ONTAP. With our services, we are only using them for one thing. If we start using the product for many other functions, it's definitely a good solution. So we are trying to find other use cases for NetApp. The more we use it, the more we reduce costs.

NetApp does offer a ransomware solution, which AWS NetIQ does not offer yet. That said, we haven't faced an issue with ransomware yet. Still, that is one of the key features of NetApp that AWS does not provide yet.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if the price were cheaper. 

My employer is a partner here in Brazil. We have clients using many different versions of the solution. Some clients are using private clouds and hybrid clouds.

Our clients use the solution as a Direct Access Recovery (DAR).

The volume is an amazing feature.

I would like to see more information about Cloud Volumes ONTAP using Google Cloud Platform on NetApp's website.

I have been using it for 12 years.

It is a stable product. I haven't had an issue with the stability of this product.

Its scalability is very good.

I haven't had any trouble with their technical support. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

We need two engineers for the deployment of this solution: one for deployment and another for maintenance.

The pricing could be improved. It is a good product, but it is very expensive for me.

I would rate this product as 10 out of 10.

Lo usamos para la seguridad en la navegación y la administración de fuentes de datos alternativas con el fin de mantener activos todos los procesos.

Nos permite sincronizar los métodos de sincronización, basados ​​en la plataforma B2B, para agregarlos correctamente a las listas de correo electrónico del cliente. Nos proporciona calidad y seguridad al mismo tiempo, utilizando estrategias tecnológicas avanzadas. Los resultados son sorprendentes en términos de funcionalidad y defensa contra terceros. 

La característica más valiosa se define por la seguridad en la que se muestran los datos y las acciones recíprocas para establecer los criterios de búsqueda. Su funcionalidad y soporte técnico son adecuados para ayudar a prevenir fallas debido a errores.

Funciona muy bien con datos externos cargados en la nube desde otras plataformas. La integración ha sido exitosa y segura. 

El producto mantiene un enfoque arraigado en los procesos no alternativos. Esto logra dificultad en la conexión de la vulnerabilidad en los procesos. Me gustaría verlos mejorar la perspectiva de inicio y búsqueda en los paneles. Esto permitiría una mejor visualización de los contenidos que se capturan en la herramienta. 

Actualmente, no tenemos ningún problema al enfatizar la herramienta. Confiamos plenamente en la estructura de seguridad que gestiona esta plataforma multifuncional.

Lo usamos en toda la empresa.

El trato con el vendedor era aceptable; El precio es razonable. Los recursos adquiridos con esta herramienta valen el costo.

Es una herramienta que nos permite mantener una perspectiva sobre el estado de la información.