NetApp ONTAP Reviews

The primary use case is as an application file server.

It is able to restore back several points during the day if there is a production issue.

• Flexible consumption
• Being able to scale as we need to
• Data production
• SnapMirror

I would like to see Synchronize Snap mode in the next release.

Stability is good. We haven't had a severe outage in years.

Scalability is very good, especially how it has matured over the past few years in cluster mode. We can now add nodes without disruptions.

Technical support has generally improved, especially the tickets for Cloud IQ where you are able to go through and it intelligently tells you how it has changed over time. That's pretty nice.

Performance: We outgrew the box. Or, the support was ending. It was one of those two scenarios.

The initial setup was straightforward. It came in a box ready to go.

We used a reseller for the deployment, Applied Computer Solutions out of LA, who was very good. We've been using them since 1997.

The data compression and deduplication have kept us from buying more disks these past three years.

Try it out, get your hands on it, and see what it does.

Every year, I am impressed with the product. It has gotten better over the years with cluster mode, but it is not 100 percent perfect. There are certain technical limitations with being able to use it for SAN, but it's improving.

Definitely ONTAP. The command line. It's super easy to use.

The ONTAP is so easy to use. I can do my tasks pretty easily on there. If someone needs something quickly I can give them what they need pretty quickly.

The one thing I would really like to see - I don't know if they offer this or not. I know EMC has got really good: their SRDF replication is really good for keeping consistency with your backups, or the other side.

NetApp is crash consistent. I don't know the quality of the EMC one but that one seems to work really well. EMC is primarily block storage anyway so that is what it is build for.

It's pretty stable. There have been some random crashes we have had though, from a couple weird things.

There always seems to be some random bug in the code. If there is a random bug in the code, it seems like we have so many of these storage arrays that one of them is going to experience a crash from it. We have had a couple like that, zombie deletes, causing the controller to panic. We have had a couple weird things like that.

Never really implemented one but it seemed to be pretty easy to scale out. If you have the money to buy one, to scale it out is nothing crazy.

We have an in-house resource and usually, if there is something going wrong, he is the one that will handle it and give it direction. If we ever call it in we always get the front-line people and typically we don't need the front-line people. When we need support we need someone specialized, like a certain protocol or a certain aspect. Usually, that's kind of annoying, when we call in it's getting front-line people and it is an extra 30 minutes just to get to where we need to go, really.

No, ever since I have been here at Centene, we have been using NetApp.

I know NetApp and EMC are at the top, but other than that we don't really have any. I haven't seen much for any other vendor, like Nimble or like a couple of others, we don't really deal with those.

We use it for datastores, and do a little bit of SAN on it too. We use it for both, block and file storage.

My impression of NetApp as avendor of high performance SAN storage is that it's not as good as EMC. I don't have any complaints, really. I primarily use NetApp. I only use the EMCs a little bit.

I am more likely to consider NetApp for mission critical storage systems based on my experience with AFF. The failover seems to work pretty well, they seem to be pretty reliable. If you have a lot of clusters, a cluster that's broke out, it works pretty well. If it fails or crashes, you still have to fix it but it still works.

Performance is pretty good. It's a little hard to compare because I'm not really on the OS side. I don't really delegate storage provision so I hardly ever get to see the other side of the systems.

When selecting a vendor the most important criteria include is: can the vendor supply a solution that we need? If we need block storage, can they do block storage very well? If we need good replication, can they provide that? It just depends on what we need it for and if they can provide that solution the best. Our company doesn't have any really money constraint problems. It's more just about the solution than about the cost.

If someone was looking to buy one I would say: I love the ONTAP operating system. The support is pretty good. I would say the block side of NetApp is probably the weak point. It still does it well, but if you are doing file shares and datastores, you could use it for that. That is primarily what we use it for.

We use it for storing unstructured data.

It is able to store a lot of data, and we can manage it with fewer people.

• Snapshot
• Availability
• Performance

Generally, their products are good when they come out of the gate. However, what would be good is when we uncover new issues, if those could be addressed quickly. 

We would like to see SnapMirror encryption in the next release and have better access to feature development.

It is generally very stable.

Technical support has gone down in my perspective. When getting to the root cause of issues, they need to respond faster. Also, they need to respond quicker to bug fixes.

There have been some changes internally at NetApp. Currently, we are moving to a different level of support which will hopefully fix our issues with it.

We use NetApp products. If we switch products, it is because the product does not perform or is not keeping up with its competitors in terms of cost.

We did the deployment ourselves. Deployments are easy, but NetApp could make it easier.

Return on investment has been good.

There are specific workloads where some vendors provide better value, but in general, NetApp has done a far better on price than other vendors.

We have used Hitachi and Dell EMC, but we use NetApp the most.

It is a good, market-leading product.

We use it with the All Flash FAS solution.

There are a lot of the reasons that we chose this solution. We are going the direction of automation in the cloud. It has flexibility and supportability around NetApp solutions and products.

For the All Flash FAS, it has lessened our performance issues. Our support for that is a lot easier for our patients to access.

The most valuable feature is the NVMe AFF.

The config could be a little easier. It's not entirely difficult, but it could be a somewhat easier. I have seen other vendors make it easier. 

We have other flash arrays which seem solid, but we trust NetApp to deliver us the best product.

One of the big benefits was the scalability. We wanted to grow as is. 

We have a lot of problems with this right now, so this product seems to help.

We have always had great technical support from NetApp on all their solutions. That's why I trust them against all our other vendors.

The initial setup is straightforward. Most of the information can be found outside of the config guide, either way the information is available.

We used a reseller for deployment, PEAK Resources. We have been using them for 15 years. They're awesome.

We chose NetApp for a lot of support reasons.

Other vendors did not seem to not be on the forefront with their solutions. Their roadmaps for the future were unclear, where NetApp's roadmap is solid. It seemed very specific for our needs.

We also looked at IBM, Pure Storage, Nutanix, and Pivot3. None of them met the mark. They were all short for a lot of reasons, but mainly it was the roadmaps. They were unclear and general, so we decided to go with NetApp.

Don't buy IBM.

NetApp solutions get rid of a lot of time spent on the operational side. This solution makes things easier for us on the operations side. 

NetApp seems to be very cognizant of what we need and where the future of technology is going with health care, in general.

We use it to manage storage for our customers. 

Our customers use it for mission-critical applications, such as backup circuits.

We use ONTAP as a managed storage for customers. It helps our customers with all its features.

There is a faster release cycle now. Also, they are doing all types of cool stuff in their cloud volumes, replication, and tiering.

The fabric pools in the newer version is cool, though we don't use it yet. It provides tiering to cloud and fabric pools.

• We would like full automation of deployment.
• The ability to scale out.
• The lack of an API is a big thing for us that needs to be improved. It needs proper API support.

It is very stable and never crashes. During maintenance, it's easy to do. If you lose connectivity, it has one-sided redundant connectivity on the back-end for shelves, which is good.

It doesn't scale horizontally since there are a limited number of shelves. Other NetApp solutions are way better at scaling. This needs improvement since the future is in scaling horizontally, similar to what SolidFire does.

NetApp's technical support is always perfect. They go above and beyond when trying to help.

We generally upgrade when a solution is end of life or moving out of support.

With older versions, it was a little complex at some point, but this was back in the day. It's still a bit challenging, but when you have the right versions, it's straightforward. 

We're trying to automate the deployment process, and as far as I know, you cannot do that with ONTAP systems today. This may not be true with the newest 9.4 or 9.5 systems. 

What makes it complicated, there is no API available to automate a task. Now, they have released a lot of Ansible playbooks to automate a deployment, which might have significantly improved it, but I have not had a chance to try them.

We did the deployment ourselves.

I would recommend ONTAP, because I like the platform. With the most recent stuff, like the fabric pools which blow my mind, it is a really good solution.

There is something interesting stuff coming out in the future, like NVMe over Fabric, which has a different rate over Fiber Channel.

We use it for on-premise storage.

For our organization, in terms of resiliency, it has gotten better over the years. It has also become more reliable.

• Availability
• Resiliency
• Recoverablity

I would like to see more evolution towards the cloud.

The stability is excellent.

The scalability is very good. It enables us to use different product lines within the same operating system.

Technical support is good to very good.

We actually haven't switched. We've been using it for about 15 years. We've been with it for a long time.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We do all our deployments in-house.

We're always looking at different vendors, and we want to see fit-for-purpose. We want to make sure that we're using the right technology for the right job.

It has a good, safe implementation.

I gave this product an eight, because there is always room for improvement and to make things better.

The primary use case is to move from Fibre Channel to SolidFire.

We see it drastically improving our organization. We are trying to move away from Fibre Channel. SolidFire with iSCSI will change a lot going forward in the organization.

The vendor diagnostics, which allows for movement from one vendor to another vendor using the application technology that is available. It should be able to talk to any vendor, not just NetApp to NetApp. We should be able to replicate the data, so the next feature should not be vendor specific.

The solution is stable, and upcoming releases will make it more stable.

Right now, there are some limitations. However, what I am hearing is that future technologies will be more scalable than what we have now.

They have pretty good technical support. They have a different support model for the hypervisor customers, so I have been quite happy with the support until now.

The previous solutions that we have are both IP and Fibre Channel-based. We are moving away from Fibre Channel, so we wanted to look for a new solution which was IP-based.

The initial setup and deployment were straightforward.

We have seen ROI.

We looked at multiple vendors.

We basically use NetApp Storage as mass storage within our offering. We also use it for backup storage, storage for emails, and sometimes for archiving. Mostly it is actually general-purpose file storage. 

The solution has very good Snapshot features. Everybody goes to NetApp for Snapshot. Their Snapshots are very good. We use it for local backups. We also have a DR set up. We use Snapshot or SnapMirror for the DR applications. We also use Snapshot for backup purposes as well. Snapshot is the one thing I would say is actually the most useful feature for us.

NetApp is very stable.

They have all the latest features. 

Their support is good. 

The performance of the hardware is good. 

We're actually looking at a software-defined version of NetApp. They already have a software-defined product called ONTAP Select. NetApp's ONTAP version for the cloud is called the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. We are looking for the Cloud Volumes ONTAP, an on-premises option. Right now, the only option we have is the cloud and that's only available with AWS and Google. We already had some discussions with NetApp about it. It usually takes two or three months and a lot of money on a software-defined solution. If we gain access to it, we can run it on a virtual machine and it will still give all the features without having to buy their hardware.

The pricing could be lower.

The setup can be a bit complex, depending on the environment.

We have been using the product for a long time. I would say we've used it in total for 10 or so years, however, in different offerings. The names have changed and the company also changed quite a bit.

I've been working with the solution for ten years, and I've rarely had any issues. I consider the product to be extremely stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

The solution can scale very, very easily.

Technical support is good. I don't have any issues with them. Most of my interactions are very, very good except for maybe one or two cases over the course of ten or so years. Mostly I find it very useful. They are very responsive and knowledgeable. 

The setup up is a bit complex within our environment. We actually tweak it to our requirements. The integration for backup purposes, for example, we use NetBackup. However, then the solution that we have is a bit complex for backups, especially if we want to actually do a Snapshot version only. We actually take full backups every day. Our solution is actually a bit tweaked for our real requirement. I would say it is actually not very complex. That said, it is not very easy either. It is somewhere in between. There is some level of complexity in our solution.

To apply and maintain the product you need a team, definitely. To deploy it, it depends on how you set up your environment. In our environment, one person can deploy it because we have most of the tasks automated. For us, it is not very difficult to deploy. however, then you also need the dependency. For example, to build a network, you are required to connect the device to the network, and then to set up the backup. You need a team as it requires some integration with the network, with the backup, and whatnot. There are many, many things to do.

In our environment, we only need two people. That is due to the level of automation we have. To operate it, you also need a team. How big the team is depending on the service level. You may have to have people in shifts. In our team, we have many people. It's a global offering at this stage. So we have a presence everywhere. That requires a huge team. There are maybe 10 plus members supporting it around the clock.

The cost is quite high. They need to work on making it a bit more affordable. We buy the equipment as a one-time purchase and then also purchase five years of support. It's a CapEx model.

We are service providers. We are offering something called a virtual private cloud. Our offering mainly the virtual private cloud. It is a cloud offering by DXC.

The product is basically a multi-tenant cloud. The cloud is hosted on our premises. We have data centers across the globe. Around 24 data centers in different regions. It's a global offering. We automated it and we have it set up for provisioning or portal enabled. It is not as good as Amazon or AWS, however, it is still a lot of cloud.

You can request a portal, however, then you cannot scale to that scale that Amazon currently is. That said, there are some customization possibilities. It is slightly cheaper than the hyperscaler cloud and that is why most customers prefer it. They find it really useful and cheaper than a public cloud offering, and it still has the same performance level.

I would recommend the product. I don't see any reason why you would have to look for a different vendor. The one thing that they can improve is the cost. That's pretty high. That is the only concern. Otherwise, they are very, very good in all other areas. Their hardware, software, their support, etc., are all good.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been very happy with the product overall.