NetApp ONTAP Reviews

NetApp ONTAP is the obvious choice for what we're doing, which is the simplification of a hyper-converged environment.

The most valuable features of NetApp ONTAP are its data redundancy, performance, storage catering, snapshot technology, and NetApp Insight. From a reporting mechanism, the solution fits our needs perfectly.

With NetApp ONTAP, the technology is all there, but its management process needs some simplification. Compared to NetApp ONTAP, Pure Storage, for instance, is a better model.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for the last 25 years.

We've had just one failed disk in the last five years since I deployed the solution.

I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability depends on the environment you've got set up. For instance, if you're using NetApp clusters, it's easier to scale. If you're not using NetApp clusters, it gets more complicated to scale. Approximately 400 users use NetApp ONTAP in our company. These 400 people are internal users, but the customer base is much bigger.

I rate NetApp ONTAP a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is complex.

We used the help of NetApp professional services and one of our other vendors for the solution's deployment.

NetApp ONTAP is a pricey product, but you pay for what you get. I rate NetApp ONTAP a five out of ten for its pricing.

Just one person is required for the maintenance of NetApp ONTAP.

I have a lot of experience with other vendors. I always choose NetApp ONTAP because no other solution meets our requirements. I would recommend NetApp ONTAP to other users.

Overall, I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten.

Deduplication, data protection, and NetApp block are some of the valuable features of the product.

The GUI of NetApp ONTAP is an area with certain shortcomings that need to be considered for improvement.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for over three years. I am using the solution's latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company has a dozen users of NetApp ONTAP.

I rate NetApp ONTAP's support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I rate my experience with NetApp ONTAP's setup phase a ten out of ten.

The product is deployed on-premises.

The deployment process took a day to two to be completed.

Two people look into the software part during the deployment process of the product.

I rate NetApp ONTAP's pricing a seven out of ten.

In NetApp ONTAP, both the hardware and the software are the same. The only thing with NetApp ONTAP is that you can't buy it separately because it comes with the box, which is its hardware.

I definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. It's a very friendly and usable tool with lots of features, majorly storage.

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

We use it for the NAS solution. We have a NAS infrastructure with NetApp ONTAP.

The product is good at deduplication. Also, the new automation feature is good, as it saves us a lot of time.

• SnapMirror
• SnapVault
• Deduplication
• The compression.

I need to be able to validate how the host is performing from the storage, as I am concerned about the host performance and storage connectivity to the host.

They have to improve on the data and monitoring tools.

The stability is good. They have point in time recovery, and they don't have any single point  of failures. 

The FAS series is good. In addition, they have around 10Gs for management, which is nice.

I love NetApp's scalability. We started in three areas, and now, we have grown to 16 areas. It is that good at scaling.

Technical support is not in person nowadays. We have to wait a long time to get an engineer. Then, most of the time, their engineers are not good enough to understand our problems. While we might not be able to explain the problem well, or they are not able to understand the problem well, their solutions are slow to resolution. The response time for tickets is bad nowadays.

Half of the setup is straightforward. However, when we want to do customizations and networking configurations, it is quite challenging. The issue is that we cannot fit NetApp's configurations to our organization standards.

We have a NetApp consultant for all types of deployments. He has been wonderful to work with as he is always helpful.

The top two vendors that we considered were NetApp and Dell EMC. 

We are also considering some white labels for HCIs, but these solutions aren't shortlisted yet.

If you need something in the NAS area, consider or test the NetApp products.

On the storage and box side, NetApp is really good at what they do.

We primarily use it for our file server environment: all our home shares, group shares, etc.

From a recovery credibility standpoint, we can recover data quickly. We are able to failover to remote sites. We can do that within minutes versus hours in the past. So, it is a lot faster.

• Reliability
• Snapshots
• SnapMirror

Snapshot and SnapMirror technologies make it easier to replicate data to disaster recovery scenarios. We can't do that with certain vendors as easily. 

I would like to see more integration into the cloud, as we are pushing to do more cloud-based compute. It is just easier to get the storage and everything synced up there and move to the cloud. We want NetApp to keep down the cloud integration path. It still needs some improvement. Overall, there needs to be more cloud integration in all NetApp products. 

NetApp needs make sure that we don't have any downtime and also keep improving on the non-disruptive pieces to avoid bringing systems down.

It is stable. We usually don't have any issues with it. Our updates have been solid.

Scalability is good. Now that we have the ability to add more nodes to the cluster, it's better. It allows us to grill our clusters allowing them to be larger and faster, without having to buy a whole new system. We have some other competitor devices in the house that are not that scalable, like Oracle.

Overall, it has been pretty good. We usually can get responses quickly, bug fixes, and whatever we need. It is easy to escalate issues.

We have been using ONTAP for a long time. Previously, it was an old files system called Novell NetWare. It was old, and this was a lot easier to deploy in our remote locations and receive data back for disaster recovery.

The initial setup was straightforward. There were not a whole lot of issues with it. 

Give it a look. It's reliable. Now, with ONTAP Select and the ability go to virtual machines, it gives you a lot more flexibility that you didn't have before.

We use the solution to manage storage. It comes with the hardware.

It is a basic storage management software. The integration is good.

Sometimes, we face problems with support.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. We do not face any glitches or downtime.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. It is pretty easy to expand.

The support team is in a different country. The response time of support for our region must be improved.

Positive

The solution is not complex to work with.

The vendor does the setup.

The product is a bit expensive. I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

I recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our client's primary use case is for the storage aspect of the solution, mainly for the block size.

The reliability of the storage is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The hardware of the solution is very reliable and there are hardly any issues at all. There rarely are failures, especially when you compare it to other vendors, which have a higher failure rate.

For example, HPE tends to be more prone to disc failures. In the case of ONTAP, this is extremely rare.

The OS is very user-friendly. Due to the fact that the architecture of the system is the same, once we learn ONTAP, we don't have to worry about drastic changes. Other vendors tend to change their products, and then we have to re-learn everything again, including the complete UI and configuration. With NetApp ONTAP, once you learn it, only a little bit of updating is required.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The solution is more for mid-range companies. 

The integration could be improved. There used to be an integration product called Snapper Tech, however, it's not available anymore. The vendor-partner relationships need to be improved across the board.

The back-up side of the solution could be improved, as could the archive. We still have to rely on third-party backup programs and other archiving solutions. If it was offered by NetApp itself, it would be much better.

The solution seems to be changing and moving towards the cloud and it will require many changes in order to be able to adapt to this shift.

I've been dealing with the solution for almost ten years at this point. It's been a long while.

The solution is easily scalable. It can, due to the features itself and the Cluster ONTAP features it supports. There are additions that need to be purchased so that the customer can scale, however. Other than that, yes, you can scale it well.

The solution best suits medium and enterprise customers. The price is small compared to other companies. 

So far, we've been very satisfied with technical support. They are quite knowledgeable and responsive.

The initial setup is not complex at all. In fact, if you compare any other storage, ONTAP is easier to install, implement, and manage than other options. 

We deploy it for our customers.

In order to scale, you do need to purchase add-ons.

I'm on the partner side, and therefore not an end-user.

I would recommend the solution. Its cluster and storage are quite good.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We enjoy working with it.

The primary use case for this solution is the storage and backup.

Previously we didn't have DR, but ever since we purchased the NetApp server, we are able to use SnapMirror and then create DR scenarios, so that's been a huge benefit.

This solution has helped reduce the overall cost of storage space in our organization by allowing us to use one data center, instead of two, and then allowing us to replicate the data; so that saves us money to buy more storage.

We have been able to save space by using this solution.

SnapMirror. DR replication, it's very useful that we have backups.

I would like the ability to perform backups in the cloud. That way you don't have to worry about building the data center. Everything's already in the cloud.

It's very stable. We never had any data corruption or data loss, so, it's been very stable.

I would say we have platinum support, so they're really good for our work, so they're really good. You get what you paid for.

Previously, we didn't use any other solution. NetApp came out and gave us a demo and it just works. 

Yes. It was very straightforward. Very easy. The PSE came in and showed us how to do it. We followed the instructions and it just works.

EMC, Hitachi, and IBM. We chose NetApp because of its ease of use. 

Our approximate cost per IOP is at least a couple of million.

I would give this product a rating of 8 out of 10. There could be improvements, its proprietary software so it can be pricey.

I say give NetApp a try. Its very simple to install and easy to use.

We have been using it for our entire environment, so we use it in file shares and in our VDI environment, at least for user data. That has reduced our user login times by about 50 percent. This has helped, and probably been one of the biggest benefits that we've recently seen, getting people's logins down to 45 seconds from more than two minutes. It's helped with our backups times, and keeping our backup windows in compliance.

The main thing has been performance, but we're hoping that we also get there on the reliability section (with the MetroCluster), so we don't have any disasters. The performance has been so good on it. Even some of their tests that we're doing, switching workloads from one data center to the other, has been great.

While its performance has been great, the configuration with the MetroCluster has been a bit of a headache. We've been working through it. However, it's a bit of a tedious process. With the MetroCluster, in theory, we should have good reliability. We have been having some issues just the finishing the configuration. Some of our DR tests have been not successful, so it's been a little troubling.

We have had some issues with the architecture, because of the complex setup with the MetroCluster. While it is getting there, we've had problems. We've had some outages trying to get the system up, so it hasn't been very good, but I'm hoping we get there. This does not seem like it's necessarily a NetApp issue, but the architecting of it has been a little rough.

Going forward, I want to see a simplified deployment and more straightforward recommendations on what is required for it. They're a little vague, and we've had some issues where we would like to have a tool that can scan the environment and find issues before deployment, fixing issues. So, when we're deploying it, we're not running into problems. Simplification would definitely help.

The system stability has been good. 

We haven't had it too long, so we haven't needed to scale it up. It does look pretty easy. We have MetroCluster, then we have the All Flash FAS and the new 8200 hybrid. 

We've been able to scale out the 8200, which has been beneficial, as we offload some of the older, slower storage to it. We have quite a bit of room to grow by adding new nodes into it. Right now, we only have two-node clusters, which have been great to upgrade, and not an issue.

Technical support has been good, but since we're using MetroCluster IP, we've been a little bleeding edge. This has been a bit of a problem because there are not as many people who are knowledgeable in it. We have had some issues getting people who have good knowledge on the subject, which has been why we've had some of the issues that we've had. A lot of it is just foundation and architecting. We've had some issues with existing equipment compatibility issues that we didn't really discover in the initial planning. The technical support has been good, but it has been a bit of a slow process.

We ran out of space with our old storage. We didn't have any full DR redundancy because we didn't have enough space to do a DR scenario. The main reasons to upgrade: Not enough space, we needed to upgrade, and NetApp happened to be a cheaper solution than some of the competitors.

We migrated from Dell EMC storage, where did have some issues with capacity in the IOPS, and NetApp was the cheapest solution. We got more performance and bang for our buck, so we moved over to the NetApp All Flash system. 

The initial setup was pretty simple, just for the basics. However, when we tried to scale out and run it in production, that's when we ran into issues. Because we were sold Fibre Channel MetroCluster, then that ended up not working for our situation, we had to buy more equipment and switch it over to MetroCluster IP. This was smooth at first, but then the deployment on production was much longer process.

All the support and deployment has been primarily from NetApp. We do have a consultant who has been assisting with some of the networking pieces, but most of the actual storage is all done with NetApp. While they've been knowledgeable, it's a complex configuration, and sometimes we've had some issues with them giving us solid answers on which direction we should go. They'll help us do something, but they don't want to give too much architecting information. That's been a bit of a headache for us. They said it was going to take 60 days, and it's been six months and we're still not fully rolled out.

We went through a reseller to buy the solution.

We looked at just Dell EMC and NetApp. Those were the two main choices, as they are similar products with similar performance. We could see Dell EMC was definitely more expensive, but it also had a more complex configuration. On paper, NetApp seemed cheaper and a bit simpler, which was one of the main reasons that we moved over. The performance for cost ratio was really interesting.

I would recommend doing your homework and make sure the environment is prepped before getting it set up. Make sure you have any prerequisites and your equipment's compatible: The distance between data centers is the networking pieces being compatible with the all-flash MetroCluster. If you have any issues there, you're going to have constant headaches with the configuration. The main piece is make sure you have all your ducks in a row on your networking gear, make sure it's compatible, and fix the issues early before you start deploying.