NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Reviews

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.

My primary use case of ONTAP is for all of my data.

We have DR and we once had a problem with electricity and the data moved to the other side of the DR and the user and I didn't know about it. ONTAP has avoided this from occurring in the future.

The most valuable features are that it's easy to manage and it's reliable. 

I haven't had to restore the Snapshot copies and thin clones. Every time I check, it's working.

I don't use the inline encryption.

In the next release, I would like to see more options on the dashboard. 

Local support needs improvement. 

It's very stable.

Scalability is easy.

Their technical support is very good. 

We previously used HPE 3PAR and we switched because of the complexity we had with HPE. It was easier with NetApp.

The initial setup was straightforward. We started with a small pilot and we then moved to production with no downtime at all.

We used an integrator for the setup. They were good. 

We chose NetApp because after we did the pilot, we saw the difference between both of the companies.

I would rate it a nine out of a ten. I give it this rating because of my experience with it and the ease of implementation. To make it a ten it wouldn't cost money.

My advice to someone considering this solution would be to go for it. 

It just gives us the capability to get cloud resources.

The primary use case for ONTAP Cloud is getting data into the cloud.

We are using the product for our future planning in the following:

• Disaster recovery in the cloud
• Backup in the cloud
• Development in the cloud.

• SnapMirror
• SnapVault
• Fast, persistent storage in the cloud

Just more scale out. It can only do two nodes. One SVM, which would be okay as long as I can scale easily.

It needs to be matured with more capabilities.

So far, so good.

It's limited. We're trying to figure out better methods as we need to scale out more.

We have built-in support. It is good. They are an onsite resource.

We needed persistent storage in the cloud for platforms, and there's really not options right now in AWS or Azure.

We also use Avere Gateways. That's pretty much it.

I was the one who evaluated and approved the use of ONTAP Cloud.

It functions and I think in the future it will be a reasonable method of getting NFS and the cloud.

The most important factor that lead us to use OTC versus a native cloud storage solution was having enough fast capabilities and social capabilities. It is extremely important that our storage enable us to render and integrate on-premise systems with cloud services. Cloud integration is also very important for us in our selection of a future on-premise storage system.

We use AWS cloud service.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: We are 95% on NetApp on-premise. We wanted compatibility with their on-premise solutions.

We store our user documentation repository in NetApp. We are serving multiple divisions, and there are use cases grouped by divisions, by user access rights, et cetera. We also have specific requirements for the backups and restores.

The main use case for us in going with Cloud Volumes ONTAP was to ensure the IOPS or performance. There are other solutions available that are probably more cost-effective than NetApp, but given the criticality of our application, the performance expectations, and the availability, those were the factors that helped us to zero in on the NetApp solution.

In terms of administration, the portal which provides the dashboard view is an excellent tool for operations. It gives you volume divisions, usage rates, which division is using how much data, and more. The operations portal is fantastic for the support team.

Cloud Volumes ONTAP provides unified storage, no matter what kind of data you have. In terms of our data, it's mainly Word and PDF files, but we have a specific use case where applications are using XML files for document management.

The only area for improvement would be some guidance in terms of the future products that NetApp is planning on releasing. I would like to see communication around that or advice such as, "Hey, the world is moving towards this particular trend, and NetApp can help you do that." I do get promotional emails from NetApp, but customer-specific advice would be helpful, based on our use cases.

We started using NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP in production in April of this year. But we had been working with the NetApp team before that, from October of 2020, to get the configuration right in the test environment. Overall, we have been using it for about one year and two months.

There has been just one incident since we started using it, in which a node refresh needed to be done. The stability is pretty good with only one incident in 14 months. We're pretty happy with that.

We have been pretty impressed with the scalability because when we started, we had to immediately onboard two more divisions and it was pretty straightforward, once we had the base setup going. We were able to scale it up pretty quickly and we were able to do it on our own.

We are using Cloud Volumes ONTAP daily. Our departments are copying the files on it and sharing them. It's a part of their daily work.

At the project level, we are not looking to expand our usage of NetApp, but at the organizational level, there are plans. They are looking at additional use cases that can be  onboarded to NetApp.

After we deployed we had a couple of queries in terms of optimizing uses. We raised a support ticket and the help was available within a couple of hours. They had people on a call supporting us.

We're pretty happy with the support we're getting and with our account manager. Everyone is prompt in responding, so we're quite happy.

Positive

We used a typical Windows file share. Then, when we moved to the cloud, we worked with Azure Files. But in terms of performance and stability, we found that NetApp was way ahead of the other solutions.

Overall, the setup process was excellent. It was pretty straightforward but we also had NetApp engineers available and dedicated to us on a call when we were setting it up. To help us get going, there was tremendous support available, which was good.

The setup time was about six hours and there were about two hours during which we had conference calls with the NetApp team. 

The NetApp team was very helpful. The engineers worked with us to understand our use cases and advised us on the configurations. They weren't just checking what we were doing but were contributing to the overall setup. That was a good experience.

It's too early to comment on ROI because we're just a little more than one year into a five-year business case. We'll probably see a return in the third or fourth year.

The pricing of this solution is definitely higher than what the typical Azure Files and AWS solutions charge, but given the features and the stability NetApp has provided, we are okay with it. We are not complaining about the pricing.

We looked at Azure Files and the Amazon EFS file system.

The pros for NetApp were definitely the stability, performance, and availability, out-of-the-box. Even Cloud Volumes ONTAP can be set up in HA. With Azure as well as AWS, you have to have your own custom solutions on top of them. Another advantage with NetApp is the admin portal which has a very good dashboard. Because it gives a good view of usage in real time, decisions become easier for the business.

The only challenging part that we faced with NetApp was that it would have been good to have a sandbox available for a PoC scenario. Without it, what we had to do was get a trial license and set it up. With Azure and AWS, you go directly to the console and just provision it. With NetApp, we had that initial period where we had to set it up on a trial license for a month, and when that was getting close to expiring, we had to extend it.

First and foremost, test the use cases where you need availability and performance as the key drivers for a solution. In those scenarios, NetApp is way ahead compared to what the competitors offer. But given the cost of the other solutions, there has to be a three- to five-year view if you are going to go with NetApp. You will not see a return on your investment after six months or one year.

I'm happy with the way it is handling our use cases and meeting our performance requirements.

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 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. 

The primary use case for our customer is disaster recovery. They had an array that was reaching end-of-life, and they were trying to decide whether to go with a refreshed new array on-premises or go with CVO in a cloud. The chose the latter.

Our customer is a large organization that has just merged with several other organizations, so they have a lot going on. It was important for them that the time to market was very short, so they needed to deploy fast and get it set up with minimal impact to the business and their IT staff.

Our customer does not use the inline encryption using SnapMirror.

This business is only using file access and no block access. NetApp provides much of their file access across their infrastructure, so this being a DR solution allowed them to have the tertiary copy.

They use Snapshots and I believe they use clones, as well, but I do not have any specific data.

Currently, they are only using AWS, but they certainly are looking at alternatives to save money.

The data footprint in the cloud has expanded since the implementation.

Using NetApp CVO has definitely reduced our customer's overall spend. However, I think that their cloud costs have probably gone up a little bit.

They do not make use of the functionality to move data between hyperscalers and their on-premises environment.

Our customer finds SnapMirror to be valuable.

NetApp CVO needs to have more exposure and mature further before it will have greater acceptance.

This solution has been deployed at our customer's site for about three months.

The stability has been really good. It has only been deployed for about three months, but they have had no issue so far.

Scalability is very good. If they need to expand then that is one of the features of this solution, easy expansion. We haven't seen any issues there. They haven't expanded it yet, but certainly, the functionality exists.

Our customer was previously a NetApp shop, and they were already familiar with SnapMirror, so upgrading to the current solution was a no-brainer. They saved money and have the same functionality.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy, with no learning curve involved.

The NetApp Cloud Manager works well, and the customers are happy with it.

Our customer has not specifically seen ROI. However, they did a calculation that showed they saved money by not buying another on-premises solution. So, there is some return on investment there, I would say, or a TCO saving at least.

The customer was happy with NetApp and did not look at any alternatives.

My advice to anybody who is researching this type of solution is to definitely take a look at NetApp for all of the cloud-specific products that are out there now. I think that NetApp is definitely a leader when it comes to the cloud approach, especially compared to other storage vendors like Pure. Pure is definitely playing catch-up to NetApp.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to manage all of our NetApp storage.

We have been having good luck with this solution's snapshot copies and thin clones, in terms of operational recovery. We are looking forward to encryption for the snapshots.

Our version does not support inline encryption using SnapMirror, so we're not at that point yet.

With respect to this solution's unified file and block storage access, we only use block-storage and it fits the needs of our customers. We serve internal customer bases, which feed the customers on the outside. For us, it is the right fit.

We don't have anything in the Hyperscaler environment right now. Everything is internal to us.

This solution has helped us because it is easy to use. The ability to find things in the GUI and being able to restore things has been really simple for us.

The Snapshot copies have helped increase our application development speed, especially in testing because we can blow things up and restore it really quickly. Speed to market is where it really helps.

In terms of the consistency of storage management across clouds, this is something that is critical to us because we have several locations. Each of those locations has the infrastructure in place, including some that are overseas. It has become more and more critical for us to manage those things centrally.

In our case, using this solution has not helped to reduce our data footprint in the cloud. If anything, it's growing.

I would like to see better integration with Active IQ. I know they're making strides for that, and some of the tools are being mimicked in Active IQ now so that I can look at the same information. If the footprint looks right and the GUI looks the same to us, it'll be more effective for us down the road in the long-term.

Encryption is very important for us going forward because we sometimes store data out of the country, and sometimes overseas. We are looking forward to more in terms of encryption, including the inline encryption for SnapMirror and things of that nature.

We have had no problems with the code levels, or anything else. We get the occasional bugs as everybody does, but the code, overall, has been really good for us.

We haven't hit the upper boundaries of the solution, so I don't think that scalability is going to be a problem for us in the near future.

The technical support has been pretty good. Whenever we open a ticket or a case, they've been really responsive.

The initial setup and subsequent upgrades have not been difficult for us.

The documentation and the reference architecture on the NetApp portals are very well defined.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

We did not use the NetApp Cloud Manager during our initial setup.

The speed to market with the encryption has really been a nagging thing for a lot of folks in our industry, so I'm glad to see that they're finally getting around to encrypting things, including the traffic in between SnapMirrors.

NetApp has been around for a long time. They're an established company and there's a lot of big companies using NetApp, so I think that the new stands for itself. When you're comparing it to other companies in the industry, NetApp is one of the leaders.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.