NetApp FAS Series Reviews

Used SnapMirror for replication and DR. It's a good case for a storage-based DR. Good results on RPO and RTO.

• Efficient usage
• Good pricing
• Good solution architects and deployment guys are available
• Licensing is easy.

• Lesser resources needed for snapshot and recovery
• Easy to manage
• Recovery process is easy
• Integration with other tools is available.

• Integration with most of the third-party BR tools
• A clear roadmap for next releases should be available.

Management, for a person who’s not a storage administrator In a couple of weeks, you can get the basics of createing virtual storage, and carving out chairs and LUNS.

Doing more with less. I can do multiple protocols, storage efficiency, data protection tool, everything is in one solution/ecosystems. There aren't many vendors who can provide that without adding third party software and apps.

Our major issue with FAS was not having one pane of glass with all products attached to it. Other major issue is the free performance monitor doesn’t provide enough information. They want you to buy Insight, which is very expensive.

It's rock solid.

I love cluster ONTAP. Being able to scale out and being able to increase performance by adding more heads to a cluster and being able to do hybrid with regular storage on same platform is huge. You can move out easily too, they provide you the tools to do that, adding a lot of value.

Great, I cannot complain. They’re there with you until problem resolved.

It's straightforward setup. Depending on how you deploy, full SAN is complex, with NAS not so complex. You have to follow best practices when building out infrastructure. So, it’s not so different than deploying it with other vendors.

With storage, what works for me won’t necessarily work for you. Call your NetApp rep and tell him you want to test the solution. Get it on the floor and beat the hell out of it. Do a very thorough Proof of Concept.

I use NetApp FAS Series to store files and for VSI and VDI.

The solution is easy to use.

NetApp FAS Series could improve by being more secure.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for many years.

I have found NetApp FAS Series to be stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 30 people in my organization using this solution.

The technical support was satisfactory.

The installation can be difficult but it depends on who is installing it.

We use a technical team to do the implementation.

NetApp FAS Series could be less expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate NetApp FAS Series a nine out of ten.

We use this solution as general unified SAN storage for different workloads.

This solution provides us with easy management and great vendor support.

The most valuable feature is that this acts as unified storage, both SAN and NAS, for all types of workloads.

Dedicated storage efficiency accelerators could improve the overall performance of the system.

The most valuable feature for us is the ability to perform LIF migrations with clustered Data ONTAP.

It made the workload we needed possible because of its flash cache.

It would be nice to be able to mix flash cache with other technologies.

We've been using it for one month.

It's very stable.

It scales for the kind of customers that we have.

We'd like to get more access to level-two engineers. Sometimes its been a difficult time explaining the problem to level-one people. This process is a little bit time consuming.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did implemented it ourselves.

When we deployed flash cache, there was no alternative for it. It was the only available cacheing solution.

Flash cache is a great product. If it matches with the workloads, you should consider it.

• Uptime
• Performance
• High Availability
• Disaster Recovery
• NetApp as a company is doing well

• We can failover when needed.
• In my organization, a law firm, brand recognition is important, and NetApp provides that.
• It gives us continuous uptime.

Sometimes there are bugs with firmware upgrades.

Not with deployment, but, again, there are sometimes bugs when we perform upgrades.

It just works, and when some drives go into failure status, it’s just a prediction of drive failure, letting us know when to get the drives replaced.

It scales pretty well, and the limit is how much you want to spend on blades, shelves, controllers, etc.

It's pretty good, they're very knowledgable. With other vendors who outsource support, there's difficulty getting knowledgable first-tier support, but with NetApp, that’s different.

We had help in the installation, which made it straightforward. It was also complex because lots of planning was involved.

It loses points in upgrades from one version to another is not as smooth as it should be. Also, understand your requirements and see how it fits in.

The primary use case is for standard CIFS/SMB file storage for Windows Clients in an ADS environment.

Samba on Solaris was a nightmare. Our situation improved with no Windows file servers, but at about 30 million files/folders, snapshot and backup functionality started to make trouble.

• Snapshots for user self-service restore
• Ability to use mirroring and SnapVault have made backup no longer necessary.

• The WAFL is slow.
• The adoption of flash by NetApp has also been lagging behind the trendsetters, like TMS, Nimble, and others.

• High Availability
• Reliability

• Reliability
• Performance level
• Great history with it, and over the last two and a half years, it's been etter than others

Depending on the use case, it needs a service catalogue you can walk through without having to use SE.

It's been great, and there's been no issues.

With cDOT, it's very easy to scale out, and that's the reason we went with it in the first place.

It's been great, and any issues have been taken care of right away.

It was very straightforward and easy.

Pick your partner wisely, as they have a lot in your success. Go with someone with a history in FAS. Also, go with vendor that buys reference architecture and follows the methodology.