NetApp FAS Series Reviews

• Clustered data ONTAP
• Data compression
• High Availability
• Snapshot technology

It helps us reduce costs because its data compression saves a lot of capacity we'd otherwise have to have.

It could improve by better integrating with other technologies like VMware, as there are some version conflicts. When you are using the newest storage virtual console, you cannot use VM Wall, the VM-specific firewall.

We have been using it for a year for SQL databases.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's very stable and we've had no problems in the year we have used it.

It has scaled to our needs.

Customer service is good; we've had no problems with them.

Technical support is good; we've had no problems with them either.

We used HDS before NetApp and we switched because of the snapshot technology and high-availability function.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward, the implementation of the system was easy, and we had great support from the NetApp team.

We used a vendor team who had strong expertise, and we are happy with the implementation. It’s important to have NetApp technicians implement the solution because it is helpful to have some experts.

No other options were evaluated.

The integration with VMware is the most valuable feature for us because we run a lot of VMs and the backup is very good when you run your VM in NFS.

We had a case when they had to restore a lot of data. We went back one hour and got back everything. The restore itself only took about an hour.

Some of the tools could be improved like NetApp OnCommand. This has been a lot better recently, but they could make it faster.

We've been using it since 2005.

It's very stable and I’ve never experienced any problems in 10 years.

It scales to our needs.

8/10 - only because it is impossible to have a 10, as there is no one that good. We’ve had a good experience with their customer service.

The solutions that are present on NetApp’s website are enough usually, but when it is tough for me to resolve it on my own I go to our consultant.

We did a long time ago.

Initial setup was pretty straightforward. We started on a small scale and built it up.

We implemented it in-house, but we use a consulting company to help. Now, we run it on our own.

It fulfills the needs we have for storing data well. We had a lot of storage spread out over many devices from many vendors and now everything is consolidated. It saves a lot of time.

Ask other people who use it as references are really valuable.

• Redundancy
• Snap technologies (snap mirror, snap shots)

The snap products allow the end-user to make restorations and perform offsite replications. Also, it gives us secure multi-tenancy.

Nothing that I can think of right now.

We've used it for seven in years.

It's pretty stable. We've only needed NetApp engineers to help with an issue once since we started using it.

Very scalable, haven’t reached its limits.

Generally goes well.

Very straightforward from rack stack to configuration.

With FAS and other NetApp tools, they make for a very intuitive solution. It's simple to manage, very scalable, one-stop shop and many native things that make it very powerful.

We have clusters, and can do non-distruptive upgrades with cDOT and can spin up VMs as needed. We have the flexibility to give people NAS storage.

With NAS storage in general, we can give people large amounts of storage for projects, and then remove it. For example, for SLS, they can spin up large amounts of storage to hold the output of modeling data, and when that’s done, they can delete it and move on. In that case, they don’t need the throughput.

We have thousands and thousands of file shares and we’re able to offer up to one terabyte of storage, and this gives us high compression and dedupe.

For cDOT in general, improvements could be made to the little things, such as the translation between 7-mode and cDOT. If there’s some kind of backward compatibility or translation of certain functions from one to the other, that would be an improvement.

It's very stable.

With cDOT, it's very good. It scales horizontally well, but not so well with 7-mode.

It’s top-notch support, very responsive and highly knowledgeable, very attentive to us as we have a monthly meeting with our TAM.

It's straightforward in 7-mode, but using cDOT, it's terrible.

We are using NetApp FAS for some encrypted projects and to provide home direction for our users.

NetApp FAS is highly stable and reliable, especially under a heavy load. That is what I like most about the NetApp.

I would like to see NetApp add incident support.

I've been using NetApp SAS for three or four years.

If we needed to scale beyond what we have now, we could do it. I would say NetApp's scalability is sufficient for our needs. We have hundreds of users accessing the file system on a daily basis.

NetApp support is helpful, and their technicians are knowledgeable. They usually respond fast. I would rate NetApp support eight out of 10. 

We previously used a Dell product. I think the two solutions are very similar. I also worked with Visionet, but that is apples and oranges. I wouldn't compare NetApp FAS with Visionet because these are very different site systems—parallel site systems.

I rate NetApp FAS Series eight out of 10. I recommend NetApp FAS because it's reliable and easy to manage. NetApp support is helpful. I encourage anyone to choose NetApp.

Better performance and lower costs.

It is a great help.

It may need more flexibility to fight with other competing arrays.

Over 10 years.

Nothing special.

Not really.

No.

Customer Service:

Good.

Technical Support:

Cool.

EMC.

Straightforward.

Vendor.

Three years.

Be careful.

EMC.

Keep up the good work.

• Snapshots
• Mobility of data
• High Availability

It saves a lot of time and minimizes downtime, which is important because we're a hospital and we can’t afford much downtime. If they can stop all downtime, it would be a big benefit for us and our patients.

I have a very small feature request: more automation of the expanding aggregates and discs.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

The stability is very good.

We have six PB of data, and have had no problems with scalability.

The technical support is good.

We have had NetApp for a long time, and were one of the first customers in Belgium.

If you are new, you have to learn the system, but once you know how it works, it doesn’t take much time to expand or install a new system. It was not difficult at all to learn the first time.

Over the past few years, they have evolved a lot in manageability and automation, so we are happy with the direction they are going in. They haven’t lost their eye on stability as well. Lots of new features without sacrificing anything.

The performance allows me to provide backend storage for large number of VMs and databases at a competitive price point.

Unified Monitoring v6.2 loses a bunch of functionality that previous versions had. For example, I took a cluster out of Unified Monitor, but Storage Monitor was still alerting me about it. 6.2 is not as comprehensive, but Unified Monitoring 6.2 will only be useful when it does everything. Insight’s price is just too expensive and unreasonable.

It's pretty stable, even if it runs into something freaky, it keeps going. For example, mysterious a reboot, and nobody notices. It keeps working.

It scales to a point, and then you buy more hardware. Doing a head swap (swapping out controllers) is not as easy as it used to be.

It's better than Oracle, but actually pretty good. They're responsive, and help resolve situations. We have had a couple of issues, but 99% of the time, they get me an answer, although it may not be what I like, but it’s a definite answer within a reasonable time frame.

It's complex, not a trivial task. We can unbox it and deploy. There are many unpublished tech tips that NetApp engineers get that customers don’t (for example, how to save a disk).

The price-per-gig makes it the most expensive storage, more than EMC VMAX. So I’d like to see more aggressive pricing.

It's losing points on its value. The performance is nearly perfect, but it’s really expensive.