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.

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.

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.

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.

My use case for the NetApp FAS Series is that it's a repository for the VM (virtual machine) and CIFS (common internet file system) share, or network share.

The NetApp FAS Series has helped simplify our infrastructure. There were times it also helped simplify our operations. 

The NetApp FAS Series is useful, because it makes restoring a single file easy, but after that, nothing more. It's just a repository of the virtual machine, so I could use it or another solution, but it's reliable, e.g. it has two nodes with high availability, so this is the reason we choose to use this solution.

This solution also accelerates virtualization, but not so much, because it's not an all-flash solution. The FAS2620 is a traditional solution with some cache, so it's not so fast, but it's enough for my company. AFF is all-flash, but this solution: FAS, is not all-flash, but people like it.

The NetApp FAS Series is not as high-performing for our business critical applications, because it's not an all-flash solution. It's also not as fast, so its speed needs improvement, but this could only be done if it's an all-flash solution.

I've been using the NetApp FAS Series for eight years: four years for the first installation, then another four years for the second installation.

The NetApp FAS Series has good stability. I never had any issues with it, so I chose it for the second time.

My impression on the scalability of the NetApp FAS Series is that it's good, but my usage is just below 50%, so scalability is not an issue for me.

I've used a different NetApp solution, but I cannot remember the exact type of storage. The reasons I switched to the NetApp FAS Series is because I already knew the product. Another reason for choosing this solution is its reliability. I never had an issue with it in the eight years I've been using it.

The initial setup for this solution was easy. Planning took one day and the setup took two hours.

We don't use the cloud backup solution of the NetApp FAS Series. We just use it in a very basic way, and nothing more than a repository for the VM and CIFS.

I do the tuning and the troubleshooting for this solution myself.  I'm the only one managing it, e.g. the other members of the IT team are not involved in it, so it's hard to say if it does reduce IT support costs.

We have not used the NetApp FAS Series in supporting data analytics, AI, machine learning, SAP, and Oracle workloads, nor did we use it to support any asynchronous replication for disaster recovery with MetroCluster.

I never had an issue with this solution, so I never used their technical support.

I'm rating the NetApp FAS Series a nine out of ten for availability and reliability.

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.

There are many different use cases, but the main use case for NetApp, as I know it, is NAS. It is among the top contenders when it comes to providing a robust solution for establishing a connection between applications and storage. NetApp is probably first or second in this field.

It provides easy integration between applications and storage. It helps implement storage provisioning services and protection services and automate everything from the application to the storage. That is the best outcome for the customers.

NetApp has everything when it comes to regulations, compliance, and security. When it comes to AI, things are not that simple, but AI can help a lot with preventive maintenance and anticipation of any threats.

One important feature for customers is its ease of use and continuity, enabling seamless usage across on-premise and cloud environments. If the customer wants to engage with the technology, whether it is a block or a file, he has the same UI to manage, automate, protect, and implement something. Netapp offers unified protocols in the same machine, which I find very easy to use.

The same GUI manages and automates tasks, protecting and implementing applications seamlessly. This represents a software approach with hardware support.

One area that needs improvement is the hyper-converged solution. Although NetApp has a solution, compared to Nutanix, it falls short. Nutanix leads the business in this approach, and I feel that NetApp is missing some aspects, such as CPU, GPU, and RAM, in its AI portfolio. Today, NetApp does not provide a server because it is not in their business model. For AI, they can provide storage support, but they lack computation solutions. It may be more effective for them to work with partners, such as Cisco, to provide the CPU, etc. Only companies like Dell and HPE can currently provide these solutions, but not NetApp.

I have used the solution for five years. I used it in my previous organization.

It is dependent on the country because sometimes the support is delivered by the local partner providing level one and two support. From our customers' perspective, support experience can vary. It greatly depends on the country and the size of the business. Sometimes, the support was inadequate because the initial architecture was poorly defined. If the implementation was wrong from the start, the support could not fix fundamental issues.

Positive

The choice depends on the company's strategy, but I believe Dell is predominantly the leading vendor globally in storage. I cannot engage without considering Dell. While Huawei offers good products, being a Chinese company, it may not be viable for public sectors. Dell is NetApp's primary competitor, followed by HPE and IBM. Covering all of NetApp's portfolio, Dell seems to be the foremost competitor, followed by HPE or IBM.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for its unified features of file and block protocols in a heterogeneous environment.

The solution's most valuable feature is deduplication. Also, its features for file and block protocols work the best.

The solution could be more flexible in terms of configuration. Also, they should increase the product range or configuration models for more storage options.

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

The solution is stable and highly available.

The solution is highly scalable. Its FAS2700 series can scale up to more than 1000 terabytes.

The solution has good technical support. Also, the logs created by the system are self-explanatory. So customers can quickly solve the problems. As a certified engineer, I have resolved all the queries.

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

The solution is more expensive than other vendors. Although, its cost depends on the use cases and configurations required.

NetApp offers bundled products along with the purchase of the storage system. Thus, the customers don't have to pay recurring licensing fees, including the upgrades. There is no expiry for storage licenses. The customers have to pay for support services. The price for the initial configuration might appear more expensive than other competitors. But it tends to be lower after a specific time.

The solution has a unique product line. It is suitable for small-scale as well as large-scale enterprises. I advise others to thoroughly understand their business requirements before buying the solution. If you need a FAS solution, go for NetApp. But if you require high-density storage, a direct-attached storage solution might be more suitable for your use cases.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.