NetApp FAS Series Reviews

The tool is used for multiple protocols like NFS and iSCSI.

The solution provides fast performance.

NetApp is costly when compared to Dell.

I have been using the solution for more than eight years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The product does not allow us to add disks. We need to add a completely new disk shelf to scale the product. The solution is suitable for enterprise-level businesses.

The support is very good. I am happy with the response time and quality of support.

Positive

We are using Dell because it is more feasible to use.

I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I've been involved in daily operations like ratio to volume and aggregate monitoring. I've also worked on the ONTAP 9 manager, as well as an ONTAP upgrade of the operating system. I've also done a small implementation along with my colleague.

The use cases depend on the customer's specific needs. Factors like workload, legal requirements, and desired protocols would determine if FAS is a good fit. 

For example, if the customer has a large database workload, we might suggest AFF instead. But for most other cases, we can recommend FAS because it's more economical compared to AWS.

Most of the important features are already included, like compression, deduplication, snapshots, and more. 

More integration would be beneficial. Moreover, cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive. But we do have other products, like support for other models, that are more cost-effective.

So, the pricing could be improved. 

I've been using it since 2017.

It's a stable product. No issues there.

It is a scalable product. I've seen it used at a bank in India with a large number of users and also at another customer site with about 250 users.

We've reached out to support when facing technical issues, such as hardware failures or processing problems. We log a call with NetApp support, and we've always received proper support. No issues there.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward.

The deployment itself usually takes around two to three days. However, if there's data migration involved, it could take longer. 

On the first day, we would onboard the box and do a hit-run test. Then, on the second or third day, we would do the implementation. 

If there's data migration, that would add some time to the process. But overall, the installation and setup can be done within two to three days.

For deployment, a team of two to four people is usually sufficient. It depends on whether it's a large-scale or small-scale deployment. But two to three people are generally okay.

It is worth it. It's very good for customers. Once a customer uses NetApp hardware, I don't think they'll go for other vendors or OEMs. They're getting the service, so there are no issues.

The licensing cost is on yearly basis. 

It's the best for the environment. No issues. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I can recommend it to others as well. But, it's important to check the pricing against competitors to ensure it's competitive.

The most valuable features are the snapshots, the flash pool that we’re using, and cluster mode. When we are doing an upgrade, there is less of an impact on the customer when you use cluster mode. It still has some with CIFS, but at least it has less impact.

Compared to the previous solution, I would not say that it has really improved anything. We were with the HPE EVA before the NetApp. It takes more of my time to manage them, as opposed to HPE EVA, with which I created LUNs and it's done. I have a lot more tasks to do. At least now with NetApp, we can provide NAS services, which HPE EVA did not have.

I would like to see antivirus that works, and generally a working solution. They just provided Vserver DR, which is good.

Now we need to have a way to do some tests only because to do testing we really need to failover to the second site, destroy everything, rebuild it, and failback. I really need a test mode that is not as destructive, at least. There is no test mode. Maybe there is with ONTAP 9. I’m not sure. That’s probably a feature that doesn’t figure into the short-term roadmap.

For more detail:

With Data Ontap 7 if something was wrong there was a real passthru that was protecting us against a loss of service if something was wrong with McAfee.

Now with Cluster Data Ontap they introduce the AV connector and the passthru is not working correctly. We have delayed our migration to the c-dot environment for over 2 years now with open call at netapp. It tooks them over 8 months to admit there was a problem until a second customer get hit with the same problem we had. This has cause us service impact with our external customer, so we are running with the antivirus disable in our c-dot cifs shares since (at least they are used mostly by applications, not direct users).

We have 2 specific cases that happen:

* A McAfee agent upgrade that cause the Virus Scan Enterprise for Storage (VSES) to stop working
* A bad config in EPO pushing an invalid user to start the VSES preventing it to be able to read the file on the netapp

In September, a new version (1.0.3) of the AV connector that was supposed to fix these issues was available but it didn’t help the file access are still being denied. The test we did was for the second problem which is easy to reproduce. Just after that I was being interviewed during the Netapp Insight which has given that review.

Since we have worked with Netapp and McAfee, I have seen no real intent to have a functioning passthru. They instead finger point McAfee for not replying. We have tried an hotfix from McAfee but it is still not working.

For vserver DR this is a new functionality which is really good and very helpful for our DR solutions. The improvement that should be done to it is a better way to fallback, there is none currently so we need to delete all the setup, on the secondary : reconfigure it, copy everything to primary and then fail it back to primary. Then to reconfigure it properly, we need to delete, reconfigure and copy to the secondary.

It is very unstable. We have a lot of issues with antivirus programs interrupting us from providing services to our customer. As soon as something happens with McAfee, the customer had problems with our services.

With the 7 mode, we were okay. There was a real pass-through working correctly, so if something happened with the NT file server, the files were still being served to the customer. With cDOT, it's completely the opposite. It's completely out of service. We have a lot of service impact.

We have been delaying the CIFS transition a lot because of this.

We have been using technical support for over two years regarding services been down. Support was not efficient in that case. They are available. They tried. I was supposed to have a solution with the latest version. That was last week. I did the test, but it’s still not working.

Before the admin, there was an issue, it took close to a year until a second customer had the same issue. Then, they finally admitted that I wasn't the problem. It was an issue with the software. That's certainly why I rate them poorly.

When we moved from HPE EVA to FAS, it was to have NAS services. For NAS, NetApp was probably the best one at that time.

The initial setup was straightforward. I had no problem with that.

We also considered EMC at that time and HPE. For what we needed, NetApp was the best one.

The most important criteria we look for in a vendor is good service and quality of the product.

Properly define what you need first. After that, talk with people who know NetApp well, know how to set it up, and properly define the design architecture before doing it.

Primarily, we use them as backup targets. Additionally, we utilize them as archives or for slower-performing tasks, serving as masters for our customers.

The most valuable features are compression and dedupe. Since we mainly use them for backup purposes, being able to compress and deduplicate data is crucial. 

There are some technical limitations, but it would be great to have in-line deduplication and in-line compression for the FAS series as well. These would be improvements on current features.

I have been using this solution for around seven years. We are currently using version 9.11.

It's very stable. I use it on a daily basis. I would rate it a ten. It's extremely stable.

I find it to be scalable both vertically and horizontally. It's a ten. It's super easy to scale.

I really like NetApp's support. 

Positive

It's very easy, I think, once you know the product. I would rate it a ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy.

The deployment took around three to four hours. I upgraded it, created and joined it to a cluster, and then configured it accordingly.

We do make money from it. I would rate it around a six or seven.

I would rate it an eight out of ten, with one being low and ten being expensive. In general, I find NetApp to be very expensive. That's the main issue I have with them. So it's a drawback in terms of pricing.

There are additional costs depending on the bundles you choose to purchase.

I have worked with similar systems from some Microsystems in the past, but that's about it.

I would advise them that it's a stable, functional platform, especially if they are already using other NetApp products. I highly recommend it. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine. It's a great product. The NetApp FAS Series is super stable and doesn't give us any problems. It consistently performs backups as needed and handles all the tasks we require. It utilizes the same excellent operating system as the enterprise-grade NetApp products, which is fantastic. Most importantly, it just works. I don't have to spend a lot of time managing, fixing, or troubleshooting it. It's simply there and working flawlessly.

NetApp FAS Series are used for sharing environments.

The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is the snapshot and the FlexClone for Oracle and Microsoft SQL environments. Additionally, the integration can be done with most all on-premise and cloud providers.

We no longer have OEM support in South Africa which is not helpful, it can be difficult. They should add an office back to the country because it was better. 

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for approximately 10 years.

NetApp FAS Series is exceptionally stable and performs well. We have been running a metro cluster and we have not had any data downtime in 10 years.

The support is generally okay but they lack expertise at times. They should add an office in South Africa for support, it would be better for customers.

The setup of the NetApp FAS Series has improved over the years and is reasonable.

The price of the NetApp FAS Series is reasonable and it provides value for the money with the feature sets. NetApp FAS Series are competing with Huawei storage which has an office and does aggressive marketing with a discount. However, we found that if our customers do a technology refresh they are happy with the performance of the NetApp FAS Series.

The price of the solution is based on a lot of aspects, such as installation type, size, and technology being used. 

My advice to others is for them to consistently adhere to the best practice guide. By following the guide thoroughly, including details, such as cabling, you can prevent any issues from arising. Practicing best practices ensures a smoother experience overall.

We have a lot of customers moving to VMware from the NetApp FAS Series solution.

We primarily use the solution for keeping our information reliable. In our case specifically, here at the operations location, we've got a MetroCluster for redundancy.

For us, the greatest aspect of the solution is the fact that it just runs. It is amazingly resilient. That's very important to us, because we are basically, with some exceptions, have a 24/7 operation. 

The newer features will be able to do things without interrupting the user experience, such as moving volumes on the fly, as well as adding and removing nodes to the clusters. That general set of features is pretty important to us.

The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth. I've actually spoken to NetApp about that. I understand from a little bit of my research that they do have another product out. They've renamed it. I don't know how much they've changed it. I don't know if they have made that a better fitting piece or if it's just got a different name.

I still have not moved to their most recent version. I believe they have incorporated several updates that I haven't had experience with yet. I'd hate to say, "Oh, we should put it that in there," and it's already there.

We have different geographical locations. The different locations probably would have a different timeline in terms of when they started using the solution. The location I am sitting at is an operations-based charter for our location and we have had the FAS type filer for probably 12 years or so.

The solution is very stable. It's quite reliable. We have it going 24/7. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches, at least not that I have experienced. It's good.

Scalability is not something that I would have much experience in from this location. We're a smaller site with about 1500 users. It's not something that has to be extremely scalable at our location. 

From talking to my coworkers at the larger locations, I believe that NetApp has become more scalable than they have been in the past, so they're going the right direction.

The solution's technical support is outstanding. We're more than satisfied with their level of service.

In terms of the initial setup, the migration of the MetroCluster, in particular, is more complex. 

I handle the management and maintenance of the solution myself, unless I need the assistance of a consultant.

We had a consultant come in and help us when we went from the non-clustered MetroCluster to the clustered MetroCluster for the different versions. That was a bit more than I wanted to tackle. I brought in the NetApp consultant to do that. I would say it was more complex than straightforward overall. The consultant even noted that when he was here that this is probably not something that, as a customer, he'd want to do on his own.

The consultant was excellent. He laid out a very clear roadmap of what we were going to do and broke it into three parts so that we didn't have too much on our plates and we could make adjustments in between each part. In the end, it was pretty smooth.

We haven't really done anything with the leasing options that they have recently come out with. We have instead outright purchased the equipment and all of the software that we use from them. 

It doesn't seem out of the normal range for other vendors. 

I don't really have a big pro or con stance on the pricing aspect of the solution.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with NetApp.

The FAS Series itself is not as complex as a MetroCluster configuration of the FAS. I would say if you're doing the MetroCluster configuration, it's worth it to get a consultant to assist. Almost every time that I have used a consultant, I have been very glad that I made the decision to hire them. I've done the incremental migrations on my own without difficulty, however, the big changes from platform to platform in particular, and from the non-clustered on tap software version to the clustered on tap software version are more difficult to perform. It's worthwhile to get consultants in those instances.

The single FAS setup, I would say, the first time I did it, was probably the biggest learning curve. Regardless of the vendor, I would probably recommend having a consultant come in for the first time you're learning all the ins and outs of the solution. After that, the migration for the individual FAS and non MetroCluster FAS seems to be very manageable if you've got a certain level of experience. If storage is kind of an extra task for you versus your primary task, you're probably going to want to pull in a consultant regardless.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it for the production system with high workload.

NetApp is the best solution because of price and production. It offers data compression and people management.

Installation of the additional switches and ETP could be improved.

I have been using the NetApp FAS Series for three or four years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

4,000-5,000 endpoints are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup takes an hour to complete. If we install simple storage, we can install it by ourselves.

NetApp is the economy or the physical port.

We have two engineers that manage storage and backup. We search devices with easy management. It has a very simple integration.

If you want high performance on the Domino's system, please read the conclusion.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We are using the NetApp FAS3240 as an integrated solution with a FlexPod that is used to host virtual machines, databases, and applications. It's a large solution with resilience and good performance; to date, we haven't had any complaints about it.

We decided to use NetApp FAS because we needed to decrease the cost of running our infrastructure. When we moved to this solution, we concentrated all the resources on top of it so that if there's something we need, we can offer it up without spending much time or money on new resources. There is no more hassle, beyond attending to the demands of running the FAS.

At the end of the day, we have reduced the time to market for all of our products, especially when we need to support our clients with new requirements.

The replication feature is noteworthy because it's faster than most and it uses little bandwidth. Then there's the friendly interface that the equipment offers. With this interface, it is very easy to manage.

I think this kind of infrastructure is mostly obsolete. To keep up with developments in this space, you need to move all these features to an All-Flash solution. Nowadays, we are working with a massive database involving big data and lots of information (even intelligence), and for these environments, it's not appropriate to run this kind of business. We feel that we need to move to an All-Flash environment in order to offer better performance for the client.

I have been using NetApp FAS since 2010.

The stability is fine. There have been no problems to date. Since 2010 until today, we have replaced no more than seven disks, but it all depends on the facilities that you are using. I can say that based on this factor, it has been very affordable to use this solution.

In general, it's a resilient solution with good performance.

We started with two instances, and now we are running four. It was very easy to scale them. We assembled them, connected them, and the business has been running very well.

On the second upgrade that we did, it was quite different because they started licensing based on the capacity of the disks. I thought this was strange, but technically speaking, it was very easy to upgrade the environment with minimal knowledge needed.

NetApp has very good support. I have no complaints about them. When you go to Active IQ, you have all the features you need. You can replace any spare within 24 hours, which is good for business.

It was straightforward and took only five working days to deploy. I remember that in the beginning it took quite some time to replicate one side to another because the communication between the sides was not good enough, but once we upgraded the communication, it started running smoothly.

We do the maintenance for the implementation ourselves. We have an agreement with the facilities that we have with NetApp, such that it's not tied to the supplier and we can maintain it by ourselves. We have a team which is prepared for this scenario as the first line of maintenance, and if we need more than what we can afford, we open a call and it's very straightforward to solve the problem from there.

As I have mentioned, we have been using NetApp FAS since 2010 and lately some infrastructure is becoming obsolete. However, after only three years of running it, we have had good results in terms of return on investment. We plan on switching out some of the end-of-life solutions with the rest of the amount invested.

We have considered upgrading to an All-Flash solution but when we evaluated the cost-benefit we discovered that we don't have enough money to invest in it. To maintain the same technology with All-Flash would be too expensive for us.

NetApp FAS is a fine product. I would rate it a nine out of ten.